Yo Hillary: I have a plan for you that will guarantee your address from 2016-2024.

[WillTwain]

Everybody hates taxes. People vote on that single issue. How about cutting federal taxes on the 99 percent by 50 percent (25-50 percent may be fine). The reduction in revenue can be rescued by raising taxes on the 1 percent and corporate America. The rich in America pay the lowest tax rates of all advanced countries.

This can be easily implemented at tax time. Whatever your taxes are determined to be, you simply divide it by two. Add one simple line on the tax forms and it is complete - nothing complicated. This will help the working class the most as most of the poor pay no federal taxes already - another benefit in selling the idea.

Nearly everybody gets a raise, the rich get a haircut and you breeze into the White House. With a single move you can begin to close the wealth gap and attract millions of voters, guaranteeing your place in history.

[Warpy]

1. The 99% don't need a tax cut

they need a wage hike and have needed one ever since that SOB Reagan got in. Wages are so low that a 50% tax cut would be peanuts, utterly meaningless.

Rich men will scream at a meaningful wage hike, it will cut into the revenue stream temporarily, until increased demand increases business.

None of this will happen while the cash flow into party coffers from the 1% is positive. However, any tax cut for the 99% will not work, especially since it usually results in vastly increased taxes at the state and local levels. Rising wages are the only answer.

[RobertEarl]

2. Wrong, warpy

The OP is correct. A president has little control on wages but can cut taxes.

A 'Cut Taxes' statement for the 99% is a public relations winner.

But like you have claimed, the last thing Hillary wants to do is hurt Wall Street, and a cut in taxes for the 99% would hurt Wall Street because the 1% would have to pay more taxes to have the system become fair and balanced.

[WillTwain]

4. It is a start.

Warpy missed the raising taxes on the 1% part of the plan which would offset lost revenue. This would eliminate transferring tax increases to state and local - accounting.

[RobertEarl]

5. It happens

I have noticed a lot of people not actually reading what is in an OP.

[WillTwain]

7. Sad, isn't it. This is a real policy possibility.

I am not sure of the exact tax cut, but as big as possible is the right answer.

You wonder what the agenda is of some DUers. The post may be a bad idea, but give me a good reason why it is bad, not a rabbit hole answer.

Are they rich and trying to shut down solutions that will affect them?

The post is intended to start a realistic conversation. Man oh man.

[RobertEarl]

20. Realistic conversation?

You must be a noob? <grin>

I was told yesterday by several 50,000+ posters that posting on DU is worthless. I kid you not.

As we see here, there are some that are just bouncing off the DU walls, imitating, I suppose, their favorite politicians and the current establishment that will say anything for the next contribution.

But I like your spirit, WillTwain, keep trying, you may actually succeed somewhat?

[WillTwain]

23. I am going to try, though my head is putting dents in my plaster walls already.

Ideas turn into pressure which turn into candidates which turn into law. What are we supposed to do lie down and take it? What are we blogging for? Let's think for ourselves, screw the leaders. FDR always said make me do it. Let's reason out our own solutions and make them do it.

[obxhead]

36. One particular New Yorker would probably have some thoughts

Against this idea.

[WillTwain]

38. The sooner she says no to our ideas, the sooner we say no to her elitism.

[cascadiance]

101. Maybe a big chunk of the 1%'s tax increase could be a war-time 'surtax'...

... where we would put a large tax on the very wealthy if the country is at war, since a big part of being engaged in a war is the huge amount of spending on the military industrial complex and its manufactured weaponry, etc., which could be reduced substantially if we were able to cut back to the point that we are not engaged in any active wars. We'd have to have a decent measuring stick on this criteria to make sure we don't enable cheating, but having such a tax in place would also serve as an encouragement for the wealthy to get us out of wars instead of electing officials that want to get us in to them to reward them back and screw everyone else in so many ways.

[WillTwain]

107. Hell yes,

We always raised taxes during wars when we were led by intelligent liberals.

[Warpy]

6. That's not how it works and you know it

because they've done this flim flamming for years.

Reducing taxes is done across the board, as a percentage. That 10% x 3 cut that got Reagan elected put a dollar or two a week into the average paycheck, while the rich got thousands.

At the same time, it starved the Feds into reducing block grants to the states.

Deprived of expected funds from block grants, states raised their own income taxes, regressive taxes like sales taxes and licensing fees, and generally made things more miserable because the local taxes exceeded the tax cuts--by a lot.

The idea that tax cuts are going to make a difference for anyone but the 1% has run its course. America needs a raise and a president has to be fully behind that idea.

Clinton is not.

[WillTwain]

10. Are you saying the only way tax cuts can be done is across the board? is that the law?

There have been many tax cuts carved out for select groups - the rich. It happens all the time.

[Warpy]

13. Yep, don't forget we lost democracy some time ago

They've tried to target tax cuts to working people by focusing on per child tax reduction but that doesn't do anything for people without children in the home. The across the board percentage cuts sound really fair to people who can't do math, and that's what Reagan counted on. You could raise the personal exemption into the stratosphere and that still wouldn't compensate people in the bottom two quintiles much.

The only thing that will make a difference is a rise in wages, a steep one.

[WillTwain]

14. So, Hillary cannot get it done? Nobody can? Nobody can raise all wages either?

Sounds like it is a hopeless situation. The president cannot raise wages across the board, either.

Why do we even have elections if it is so rigged there is no way out.

[Warpy]

15. She doesn't want to get it done.

She's focused on tax cuts.

[WillTwain]

16. Are you saying it is a good idea that she will not pursue?

[RobertEarl]

17. Ok

So what does Hillary say about raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour?

[WillTwain]

18. Exactly, if taxes won't work what will she do?

A real living wage would be nice. More of the same will not make it. Obama failed the middle-class on the wealth gap.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. How would raising taxes on the 1% hurt wallstreet?

[WillTwain]

77. Does bruised ego count as hurting?

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. I guess. n/t

[Chan790]

82. RobertEarl, have we ever agreed on anything before?

If not, today won't be the first time.

I don't need a tax-cut. I think my taxes need to go up and the additional revenues need to be directed towards stimulus. I'm not poor: I grew up in one of the wealthiest parts of CT, went to private schools my entire life, live in the family estate in a 5500sf mansion...I can afford the haircut.

Tax cuts are always the problem...the tax rates haven't been high enough to actually fund our government on the level it should be to care for all Americans since Reagan slashed income tax rates. It's the ticket-price to not live in a shitty society. We need to embrace the message that tax-cuts are explicitly never the solution. Taxation is patriotic!

[WillTwain]

92. With forces driving wages down

tax structure needs to be considered.

Unions are badly weakened, government shows little interest in a living wage, so a tax plan similar to this should be considered.

[Chan790]

93. Will, we're just never going to agree.

I've argued before for a constitutional amendment to ban tax cuts in wartime.

The logic is sound...if they can never be cut, there will be holy hell to raise them unnecessarily so they will also never go up except under dire circumstances. We're never not fighting somebody. Alternately, we could decide to start rolling-down the defense budget and stop bombing people.

Generally though, I think the words "tax cut" are irredeemable blasphemy. I do consider tax-structure...I think it's too low and has been for 30+ years. I will never consider it and if massive tax-cuts are part of the Clinton agenda, that would be par for the course for someone I've long favored throwing out of the goddamned Democratic party tent.

[WillTwain]

95. Chan, For the longest time, I held your beliefs.

one thing to consider is the tax shift that has occurred since Reagan. The middle-class is getting soaked by higher tuition, local taxes have gone up, state taxes have gone up, sales taxes are routine now, fees are everywhere. Part of my reasoning is lowering taxes on the middle-class is only an attempt to bring tax rates back in balance. I am unsure of the exact cut, but 25% may make sense. Of course, an overall tax increase on the rich must more than offset the cuts to the Middle-class. Overall we need to raise taxes a lot.

Again, taxes have long been a means of wealth distribution. It seems wages are not going to increase. Corporations are running our lives, government needs to to use the methods in front of them.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.

[WillTwain]

3. The tax cut is only a small part of the answer.

Like Earl said, it is something politicians can control. And it will guarantee a landslide win for democrats.

[JI7]

9. exactly

[WillTwain]

12. Exactly what?

[LittleBlue]

64. Precisely

The issue of lowering taxes is a discussion of how to divide an ever diminishing pie. If real change is to occur, we need a greater share of the profits to go to the workers.

[WillTwain]

66. LB, There is so much room on this issue it is silly.

Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Most people have no idea the insane wealth accumulated over the last thirty years by a handful of Americans. It is reported that they have $34 trillion parked offshore. Our entire debt is half that.

The solutions are right in front of us.

[LittleBlue]

67. Exactly

Earnings parked offshore have to be tackled first.

This repatriation holiday from tax talk is such BS

[WillTwain]

74. Even the term re patriot

pisses me off. Patriot, ok.

[JI7]

8. why only Hillary ? how about other candidates ?

[WillTwain]

11. This is for all candidates. Hillary is the presumptive democratic nominee.

And announcing this weekend. She is the big dog. But, you are correct this is for everyone running. I am confident Bernie would take a hard look at this and give a thumbs up or down based on logic. Hillary is a question mark on a proposal like this.

[lovemydog]

19. Yup. This should be considered

along with raising the federal minimum wage.

I've never understood why some here will discredit an idea or proposal based on the thinking that everything is some kind of either/or proposition. Most successful policies and most successful strategies in life derives from thinking in terms of adding anything that's good while eliminating stuff that's not successful. Another thing I see too often here is folks taking the absolute most negative stance of 'it's never going to happen.' Well, duh. That's why it starts as an idea or a plan. I love ideas & plans & sharing thoughts!

I like the way you think WillTwain. Some other things that should be considered (or at least stuff I've thought about & shared with friends) include: increase minimum wage and limit maximum wealth, no taxes federal or state if you make under $50k/year, removing tax exemptions for religious organizations.

We must keep entering these kinds of proposed policies into the debate.

Stuff can happen if enough people think it and dream it and talk about it! I actually remember people saying 'the internet is over, people just aren't that interested.' Same things were often said about cars, personal computers, and language involving 99%. Yet here we are today. We need more more more proposals for reducing inequality of wealth. It's a serious problem in our country that must be addressed and improved.

[WillTwain]

21. DU should be an idea maternity ward. Mudslinging has its place

but why can't we have serious proposals and robust discussions. If this is a bad idea, tell us why.

Many are trapped in the snarky blogger zone.

[lovemydog]

24. Agree. 'That will never happen' doesn't cut it.

Fuck that noise.

I love ideas. I love positivity.

From small things big things one day arrive.

Another idea. Nationalize insurance and health care.

I read here the other day that the average cost of one person in an assisted living place is $94,000 a year.

Instead of sending mom & dad to Guatemala I'd rather remove profit from health care.

Problem solved!

[WillTwain]

28. This country is so fucking rich it is sickening.

Think of this, 50 years ago the economy and collective wealth was tiny compared to today, yet we had no debt, free college, a much better health care system, pensions, lower property taxes and on and on.

The only reason we are in the shit hole we are in is greed. We can solve every problem we have in this country by raising wages and taxes on the rich. But it will take guts from a president. Bernie will do it. Hillary is a long shot, Obama failed.

[lovemydog]

35. It's nice talking with someone who can carry a conversation

beyond 'that'll never work, and let me tell why in a three word text from my phone.'

So, pleased to meet you WillTwain.

We must raise wages and taxes on the rich. I agree with you 100% there.

Yes, it will take guts from a President.

My view on that is that we need more city council people like the socialist one in Seattle. We need more governors like Huey Long. We need more people in Congress like Sanders and Warren and the progressive caucus and the black caucus. People who get it.

Personally, I don't feel this will begin at the Presidential level (though I'm certainly in favor of the most progressive possible President and will definitely vote for the most progressive available one in the primaries whether it's a democrat or an independent or a socialist party candidate).

I actually love President Obama. He & his Administration & his family have turned me on to progressive politics again. Got me thinking of the possibilities of a peacetime economy and the possibilities of going way beyond the Affordable Care Act and more toward removing insurance companies from the health care equation. I'm a proud democratic socialist and I remain optimistic about positive change.

I'm most concerned these days with rallying younger people to be engaged and most I know are doing good things on local & personal levels, like getting rid of credit cards and starting cooperatives. I'm working now more offline, at local levels, mainly in talking with friends and trying to get them engaged and maybe even involved with local stuff. I guess I feel that the best changes will come from the bottom up rather than the top down. We can agree to disagree on President Obama, I don't mind. I like talking with people with differing views so long as it's a positive conversation!

[WillTwain]

44. It is a pleasure to know you. I love the fact that we can disagree on a few things, agree

on the big picture and seek answers together.

I am a democratic socialist, too. To my own detriment, I tell people freely. They think it means I am a Marxist. Sometimes it feels like I am at the eastern foothills of the rockies with the pacific as my destination. No matter, this will sound horrible, but I know we are right.

For the first time in many years, socialists are being elected and gaining respect. Hope springs eternal. Progress always wins after the dust settles.

You need to be strong to be a D.S.

[lovemydog]

46. Awesome! I think democratic socialism

offers the best way forward for all the working people in our country. I've seen it on local levels - people really getting stuff done for the benefit of the large majority.

Hope you enjoy a great weekend.

Nice meeting you here.

[WillTwain]

48. Peace

Look at Europe and dream.

[sabrina 1]

85. Maybe Bernie should start his own party? Move Dems to the Left by giving them somewhere to go if

their own party continues to swing further and further to the right.

Dems who have left the Dem Party are registering as Independents. If there was a Socialist Dem Party I have a feeling that is where they would go. That would give those voters HUGE leverage with the Dem party as Bernie has when he wants something for his state.

The Left would then have a real bargaining chip when it comes to eg, choosing Presidential Candidates, and Congressional Candidates.

The Left is not welcome in the current Third Way controlled party, they want our votes, but do not want nor do they give any power to the Left once they get elected.

[WillTwain]

87. Hire this girl - political strategist.

look at what Huey Long did to FDR. Huey was immensely popular as a populist. So much so that FDR viewed him as a threat in the 1936 election. Ultimately, FDR moved hard to the left to stop Long. Unfortunately, Long was gunned down by a right-wing thug.

[sabrina 1]

89. The Dem party is losing registered voters anyhow. The last statistics I saw on this (Republicans are

also losing voters) were that Dem voter registeration is now only at 32% down from over 40%, approx 10% lost.

No one wants to talk about this. Eg, when they say 'Hillary has the support of over 80% of registered Dems' what does that mean in terms of winning? Even 80% of 32% is nowhere near enough to win an election. And it's doubtful she will get the support of the 10% now registered as Independents.

My thought was that if Bernie has his own party, and those Indies were now registered as Social Dems, they would have a powerful part to play in the election, as they are mostly the Left of the party, AND the Left who are still registered Dems would be more empowered.

Sort of like a Parliamentary system. 'You want our votes, you need our votes, you will get them IF you provide us with candidates that represent the Left of the Dem Party.' As it stands, being registered as Independents doesn't give them much leverage.

With Bernie as the negotiator I think we would see far more power going to the Left than is happening right now. Just a thought, I'm sure there are better ideas. Just trying to bring OUR party back from the right swing it has taken and give some power to the Left for a change.

[WillTwain]

91. If Bernie gets a fair chance from the media,

And I doubt he will, he will bring working class republicans and democrats to his populist message. Given a chance to fairly present his platform, only radical extremists and entrenched politicians and their followers would reject his politics.

[sabrina 1]

94. I definitely agree. But the media is owned by the same people who are funding their choice of

candidates. Which is why no one else has a chance against the billion dollar candidates. So what I would prefer to do is to focus on Congress and the Senate. And locally of course.

[WillTwain]

96. The wrench in the system is the long coat tails the president has.

Hillary will have little Hillaries taking her lead.

But, ya, local elections are enormous. Look at Seattle, one socialist is making a big difference - minimum wage of $15 an hour is evidence. Look at MN with Governor Dayton and Cali with Governor Brown. Governorships are a good place to focus.

Nice chatting with you.

[lovemydog]

98. Perhaps. The risk is that it's a quixotic adventure.

I'm more interested in local levels because positive changes are achievable and significant. School boards, city councils, mayoral administrations, even small corporate boards. Especially in urban & other areas with a progressive base. That's where we best help people and have the most likelihood of attracting voters. Then expand our base and expand leverage.

Sanders has said that in a presidential general election he's not interested in siphoning votes from the democratic party. I agree with him. I rarely trash democrats. It's not my style or where I feel comfortable expending energy. They're often allies.

On a federal level I'm interested in expanding our base and making sure the progressive wing has a strong voice. I still think at most levels there are tangible differences between democratic and republican policies. I'd like to see democrats make those differences more stark and public.

Closing offshore tax loopholes, opposing military interventions, strengthening public education, reducing the prison population, raising the capital gains tax, supporting organized labor, immigration reform, reducing carbon emissions, regulating Wall Street, expanding opportunities for all, higher wages. These policies are of course dear to leftists. They're also good for the large majority of people in our country. We have to let them know that and also they have to experience & feel it for themselves.

[lovemydog]

22. Here's an idea I just had: a one-time tax of $ 5 trillion

on the top 1% and big corporations. If they don't want to pay their share, have them deported.


It's doesn't quite make up for what they stole from the 99% with all the wars, bailouts and tax restructuring supported by all republicans and far too many phony corporate democrats. But I'm a forgiving kind of guy and I think they all deserve a second chance to be decent citizens.

This would stimulate our economy big-time, and probably lead to a lot of great new businesses. At the very least it would pump a ton of money into the economy and create jobs.
It's the opposite of the completely discredited boondoggle of trickle down bullshit.

[WillTwain]

25. I have had the same idea. The rich have $34 trillion in offshore accounts.

They could pay off the national debt twice. You want to see an economy take off, eliminate all debt. We will have more money than we know what to do with. By the way, the rich will still have too much money.

[lovemydog]

27. True that. One ad could feature a bunch of middle-aged and younger

people saying 'We're gonna save you mom and dad. So we don't have to ship you to Guatemala for assisted living!'

[upaloopa]

26. Congress writes tax law not the President.

[lovemydog]

29. Yes. And that's why we need far more progressive people

in Congress.

Far more in numbers. And far more progressive than the average horrendously corrupt 'let's blow the rich' republican and the average mildly corrupt ho-hum boring bland wishy washy mainstream middle of road 'came up through the ranks' democrat.

[WillTwain]

32. Hillary better sound like Huey Long or we do not need her.

[WillTwain]

30. The president has big influence over congress. Heard of FDR and LBJ?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

31. Every one of us should be in the streets DEMANDING universal healthcare, $20MW

and MASSIVE wall street/banskters reform

We could say "or else" and mean it

[WillTwain]

33. It is up to us. We decide our lives. We make our bed.

This may be a sad example of democracy, but it is a democracy.

[lovemydog]

39. Tell me where there's a rally in New Mexico.

I'll show up and bring friends.

I totally agree NoJusticNoPeace.

You don't have to give me a time & place right now, lol. But I've been attending more of these kinds of rallies and I agree with you. Some friends and I will even take a bus to NYC or DC for big rallies like that!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

40. We are using this FB page to try and coordinate

https://www.facebook.com/equalityforallactivism?fref=ts

if you know of any groups wanting to do something, post it there

[lovemydog]

43. Thanks a million. I'll join and also bring it to the attention

of friends involved in those types of groups. Have a good weekend!

[WillTwain]

45. From the bottom up NJNP.

Thanks for the link.

[obxhead]

34. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You do understand that is against every thought and fiber of her being.

Mrs Goldman Sachs will fight for the exact opposite.

[WillTwain]

37. Fine, but let's force her to answer to ideas like this.

if she fails, which is likely, maybe some will turn to Bernie. We need to hold her feet to the fire. Believe me, I am not naive enough to think Hillary is the answer, but we need to formulate ideas and ram them into the debates.

[obxhead]

50. so, you will believe campaign trail bs

Over her very cozy ties to wall street and bankers?

[WillTwain]

54. Only if she is specific.

Exact minimum wage proposals, ACA proposals, Social Security proposals, tax the rich rates, etc.

No wishy washy shit. Look, this is a long shot but we need to try.

[lovemydog]

41. Laugh all you want. Any Presidential candidate will respond to massive pressure

from their potential voters. I don't plan to vote for her unless and until I'm satisfied that she's the most progressive option on the ballot. I won't vote for her in the primaries, if there's anyone to her left.

It's not all doom and gloom and laughing at and sarcastically mocking people on the net.

But I'll share your laugh and say BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! back atcha.

Have a great weekend!

[WillTwain]

49. Keep throwing hay makers until one lands.

[lovemydog]

56. LOL, they rarely land. But it's fun for a bit.

Just reminded me, I'm going for a walk. Take care & keep fighting!

[WillTwain]

58. We decked um before.

[obxhead]

51. Any Dem

Is more progressive than Clinton.

[lovemydog]

55. That's not accurate.

But I'm no big fan of Clinton either.

[obxhead]

60. Ok, I'll give you that (barely)

but of any that are either kicking the idea around themselves, or are having the idea kicked around by supporters, they a far more progressive by miles. Many, many, many miles.

[Motown_Johnny]

42. The problem with that is...

that the 1% and Corporations will spend whatever they need to spend in order to make sure anyone running on that platform loses.

If we had publicly financed campaigns then candidates could run on issues that the people support. As things are now, they need to run on policies that the big money supports.


Sorry to be so cynical but that is just the way our system works now.

[WillTwain]

47. You are right, but have no choice but to keep fighting. This will end. It must.

Fuck we need someone to rally around. The right candidate would light a fire under half the country. Hillary will take the wind out of our sails, again. We need a firebrand. Bernie 2016.

[Motown_Johnny]

103. Of course we should fight. But we must pick our battles.

There is a reason why Bernie Sanders will not be our nominee for President. If we did nominate him we would end up with an (R) again.


I believe lasting change comes in small increments. If you try huge sweeping changes all at once you will either fail or, at best, face a backlash due to being seen as over reaching.

(IMO) This is more like trench warfare, not blitzkrieg.

[WillTwain]

105. In my humble opinion

Liberal poitical movements are more like earth quakes. The pressure keeps building until it jolts in one direction or another. There have been three big movements in the last century. FDR's New Deal produced massive change in about 15 years. LBJ's Great Society produces enormous positive change over about a decade. The problem we have is the third seismic shift is a conservative economic movement that has lasted 35 years. The latter has been more of the incremental type - 35 years of non-stop tremors.

I do not think we can survive with slow incremental progress without it turning into an earthquake. The pressure is too high.

[lovemydog]

53. True, they will keep trying so long

as lack of campaign finance reform exists. The good news as I see it is that most younger people I know don't even listen to television or radio advertising. When I hear that stuff I laugh my ass off and look into voting for the opposing candidate. There's also some positive data that campaigns funded by the Koch brothers have been losing. I think many, and the numbers are growing, are so turned off by corporate spending that they'll look at who isn't spending it and consider voting for them.

And I agree with you one hundred percent that we should have publicly financed campaigns.

In the absence of that I strongly support issue-oriented campaigns and non corporate candidates.

[WillTwain]

70. Help me with this.

Why are DUers defending the rich? Why are they down on taxing the rich as we did in the past. Why do they scream "the sky is falling" when taxing the rich at a much higher rate is proposed?

[lovemydog]

99. It depends on each individual poster, I think.

So it's difficult to answer your question WillTwain. I understand those who say that one simple thing isn't the answer to every one of our challenges. Especially when under existing laws people & corporations can move money offshore or farm out jobs with low wages. I guess you'd have to ask each person individually, for a better understanding of where they're coming from.

I'm not anti-rich. I think they should pay their fair share and that in terms of general revenue and supporting the economy they aren't being asked to do enough. I think some of this thread are agreeing. I also feel there should be maximum wealth but we have a long way to go before we get most accepting that idea.

I know a liberal rich person who often tells me 'I don't need more tax cuts. I need a stronger economy to keep my business going.' Even Henry Ford understood that for his company to be successful his workers had to be able to afford to buy its cars.

I don't consider anyone who opposes raising the capital gains tax to be a liberal or really even a democrat. If anyone can say they are I'd love to hear from them as to why.

Holy crap I'm kind of going off on a tangent now, lol, so I'll just say hi!

[WillTwain]

100. A few years ago

about two-hundred rich Minnesotans took out a full page ad in the Minneapolis Star Tribune asking then Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty to raise their taxes. Guess what happened?

On corporate taxes: The effective corporate tax rate has fallen from a high in 1950 of 50 percent to our present rate of 15 percent. The story is similar for individual income taxes. Anybody that defends the present tax rate is not a history major of a liberal. It appears as if group think is hard to break free of. The facts are a few clicks away, yet many "democrats" repeat the deeply flawed conventional wisdom - raising taxes will kill the economy.

The biggest difference in the new America is the huge tax cuts for the wealthy. If we raised taxes by 25 percent on the rich, they would still be too rich and the country could heal and rebuild.

Hi back.

[lovemydog]

104. Yeah, the effective corporate tax rate has fallen from 50% to 15%.

That's clearly part of the problem. Also during the Eisenhower administration, the height of prosperity for workers, the marginal tax rate on top incomes was over 80%. Now it's 35%. That's a lot of bullshit trickle down theory at work in the past fifty years. It's failed policy. Voodoo economics. It's fair to say it didn't help expand the middle class. It's fair to say it led to greater income disparity. I think it must be halted and reversed.

Things must change and must change on all fronts, including closing offshore tax loopholes. That is, if we really want to strengthen the middle class and give working people a fighting chance to builder better lives for themselves & their families. It's just not easy now because of all the different factors that might be involved. In terms of reducing our deficit, keeping jobs here, combatting outsourcing, providing better than minimum wage jobs and apparently to continue paying for our bloated military-industrial complex that neither party seems serious about slashing even in peacetime.

Unfortunately I think too many of rich in this country, and too many corrupt and bought off politicians from both parties, have become too much like the rich in Greece before its economy collapsed. They just don't think the rich should have to pay much of any taxes at all. That's a dangerous notion and one that is already lead to a smaller middle class, low wages, and disenchantment among voters. Add to that the lunatic tea party and republicans and democrats who keep arguing for making permanent tax cuts for the rich. And crazy republican voters who think all taxes are bad.

I think some here are also saying that some economic & political people very much understand these challenges, and their policy proposals will indeed address them. I hope that's what they're saying.

[WillTwain]

106. The idea that many here are underestimating the magnitude of the problem is right on.

They also have no idea of our historic tax record. As the OP says, a tax increase of about 25 percent is realistic. In fact, It would leave us far below the average over the last 50 years. A 25 percent increase on our current 15 percent effective corporate tax rate would still leave it below 20 percent. The same idea applies to individual tax rates.

Coincidentally, the golden years for the middle-class were when tax rates were the highest. Shazam.

This stuff is right in front of our noses and democrats running for office ignore it.

Everything the conservatives say is a lie, yet liberals fall for the junk.

[BainsBane]

52. The federal tax burden on Americans is near it's lowest in history

and far lower than Europeans pay. Such a proposal would be irresponsible, and the numbers do not add up to equate a mere 1 percent increase in the corporate tax. It is certainly true the rich pay lower taxes in comparison not only to other nations but also in comparison to previous times in US history. But so do most of the rest of us.

[WillTwain]

57. How can raising taxes on the rich be irresponsible?

The thing to consider is how the cost of being American has gone up so much - healthcare is an indirect tax, tuition issn indirect tax. Add it all up and I doubt the middle class is getting off easy compared to other countries.

[BainsBane]

59. What is irresponsible is depleting the national treasury

by slashing revenues as you suggest. A 1 percent increase in the corporate tax doesn't approach making up for the kind of tax cut you propose. It would require massive cuts in federal spending, and that itself would prompt an economic slow down. There is a lot of information available on historic tax rates on the web, and detailed analysis of the tax plans from the 2012 election. You are not informed on this issue.

[WillTwain]

62. Never said that. I am talking about a huge corporate tax increase - maybe double. Many pay nothing.

I am afraid you are misinformed. The top tax rates was as high as 94 % on personal income. Most of the wealthy today pay around 17% today. Ask Warren Buffet. Corporate taxes formerly made up a third of all taxes paid. Today, it stand s at about 8%. This would imply a huge increase is possible. We pay the least overall taxes into the social safety net by a long shot. Check your math. We are paying far less as a percent of GDP than in our past.

Enormous tax increases are available, if history is our guide.

I do not know where you are getting your information. Maybe, Hillary or the Bushies?

It is easy to toss out "You are not informed on this issue." Back it up.

[BainsBane]

69. I said just that to you in my first post

and now you are insulting me. Why don't you try reading it? I said the wealthy pay historically low taxes but so do you and I. If you want a 25-50 percent tax cut, you need to be prepared to see that level of services, including Social Security, cut.

It's easy to say raise the taxes on the rich. The question is what the precise numbers are and how they add up. I first misread your OP and thought you said raise the corporate tax by 1 percent. You said raise the taxes on the 1 percent.
That basic idea was part of both of Obama's campaigns, but he was unable to get it through congress. It's not exactly new. Though the idea of slashing middle-class taxes by 25-50 percent has never been proposed, even by Paul Ryan, because it would bankrupt the treasury. You don't have the first idea of how the numbers add up, and claiming anyone paying attention to basic math is getting information from the "Bushes" is just plain nasty.

What else is mistaken is your emphasis on the corporate tax rate itself rather than mechanisms by which the extremely wealthy (not the 1 percent, whose income begins somewhere around $440k) evade taxes through provisions in the tax code and stash their money abroad. The marginal corporate tax rate is actually higher than in many countries but the effective rate is lower. Raising the rate alone does nothing about compliance and loopholes, nor does it address personal wealth, particularly the trillions stashed offshore.

You haven't done even a bit of homework to figure out how the numbers will work, and now you accuse me of getting information from "The Bushes" and throw in Hillary like it's the same thing? You have a lot of fucking nerve. Especially when you propose what you think it a grand revelation and has in fact been part of the last two Democratic presidential campaigns, though not with the deep cuts you suggest.

You insult me and a Democratic candidate, and then expect me to do the homework you couldn't bother to do for your OP? I'm not your servant. Tend to your own mess.

[WillTwain]

75. If you think raising rates on the rich is insane,

check your history books. Quit denying that I have not offered facts, you are the one without the ambition to refute my facts.


The argument about cutting services sounds like a typical Frank Luntz talking point. The plan would be in balance, taking from the rich and giving to the rest. No cuts in revenue or services. Pretty basic math. You are fear mongering like Sean Hannity. Stop defending the rich, Mr Third Way.

You made the mess now mop it up.

[Hoyt]

61. I don't think OP meant a 1% increase on corporate tax rate, but you are right it's irresponsible.

The OP's proposal might be nice in the very short-term, but long-term we'd be in a world of hurt unimaginable by anything we've experienced in many decades.

Tax increases for wealthy are in order, but not of that magnitude. Plus as you note, the numbers don't work out.. It's about as irresponsible as the so-cslled Fair Tax and Tbagger spending cuts.

Those kind of irresponsible sentiments are why many will always hate whoever is Prez. Even Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders wouldn't try to deliver on something like that.

[WillTwain]

63. So, FDR had it wrong all along? Really?

If we maintained a smart tax rate all along, we would be swimming in money. That is the truth. Allowing working class people to live in poverty with no hope of ever crawling out of their hell-holes is irresponsible. This country needs a shake up not tweaking around the edges. Besides, I did not give a hard number for the tax cut for the middle class. But a large tax cut is in order.

You need to understand all the stealth taxes we pay today that are not factored in our "tax-rate."

Tax the piss out of the rich and they will still be rich.

Take a look at corporate profits over the last decade and tax cuts, then look at our debt. It is all right there.

[Hoyt]

68. Doubling the tax wouldn't raise enough for longer than one year at best.

A 5 to 10 percentage point increase might wprk, but doubling would run the wealthy, businesses, and investment out of this country and hurt most of us long-term. Like it or not, most folks work for corporations and depend on products and services produced by large corporations.. Admittedly, corporate oversight is necessary.

Lots of things need to be done to tax wealthy and corporations, but I doubt any responsible economist would approve of the OP's idea.

[WillTwain]

71. What is my idea in your mind?

[Rex]

65. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum

[WillTwain]

72. Good stuff.

[Rex]

73. Hillary Clinton is

going to beat EVERYONE!

SPARTA KICK!

[William769]

79. If it's such a great plan file & run with it.

[WillTwain]

81. If you are George Soros and will open a PAC, I Am in.

[William769]

83. It's not hard to start a PAC.

I'll wait to see Hillary's plan instead of a armchair quarterback's.

[WillTwain]

86. It is fun to speculate. I hope Hillary makes an ass of me and is the next Huey Long.

[MineralMan]

80. Let me ask you something: If you were in a room with Hillary Clinton

and you had an opportunity to talk to her one-on-one, would you say "Yo Hillary?" I doubt that very much. I certainly wouldn't. I don't think the whole "Yo!" thing really works very well at all. I doubt that approach would get her attention, somehow, and I know she's not reading posts on DU.

[WillTwain]

84. Yo, MineralMan. Just having a little fun.

I would tell her to explain her position on the board of Walmart and her support of the TPP.

By the way, I am not alone in a room with Hillary, hence the silly "Yo." It is reserved for DUers like MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

88. Yah, well, I don't answer to Yo! either.

Try asking her to explain her positions instead of "telling" her. I don't think you're in any position to "tell" any Presidential candidate anything at all. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though.

[WillTwain]

97. You answered to YO.

[WillTwain]

90. Yes master.

She is no more an American than any of us. If she and you are above me and are beyond taking suggestions, we definitely need a revolution. I, unlike you, am not in favor of aristocracy. Democracy and the greatest aspects of democracy bubble up from the bottom. The top down approach has failed us.

[Vincardog]

102. Add a Financial Transaction tax to pay for universal healthcare and education and we can talk.

[WillTwain]

108. Who would fight this?

If people heard this proposal, they would love it. Let's see if Hillary is listening. Yo, Hillary.

[lovemydog]

109. Oh, hell yes!

I like the way you think Vincardog.

[lovemydog]

110. Yo, Yo-Yo Ma!

I like this thread. Here's a little interlude!

[WillTwain]

111. Yo Mom-ma

To all those that reject the thread and fight for the rich.

[Cali_Democrat]

112. Your math is flawed. nt