Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Report: White House Considers Smaller Fiscal Cliff Deal [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)46. Actually, it's a
slight increase for the top one percent because there are also tax increases built into the health care law.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3210&DocTypeID=2
<...>

Under Clinton, the top 1 percent paid 33.4 percent; under Bush it paid 29.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 35.3 percent, less than two points than under Clinton.
Meanwhile, under Clinton, the top 0.1 percent paid 36.9 percent; under Bush it paid 32.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 39.7 percent. By contrast, every other group would be paying lower rates under Obamas proposals than under Clinton. (A table detailing these numbers is right here.)
Its true that the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent would be paying more. But the significance of those hikes shrivel dramatically when you consider how much better these folks have fared over time than everyone else has. The highest end hikes shrivel in the context of the towering size of their after-tax incomes and the degree to which they dwarf those of everyone else, something that has increased dramatically in recent years.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html

Under Clinton, the top 1 percent paid 33.4 percent; under Bush it paid 29.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 35.3 percent, less than two points than under Clinton.
Meanwhile, under Clinton, the top 0.1 percent paid 36.9 percent; under Bush it paid 32.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 39.7 percent. By contrast, every other group would be paying lower rates under Obamas proposals than under Clinton. (A table detailing these numbers is right here.)
Its true that the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent would be paying more. But the significance of those hikes shrivel dramatically when you consider how much better these folks have fared over time than everyone else has. The highest end hikes shrivel in the context of the towering size of their after-tax incomes and the degree to which they dwarf those of everyone else, something that has increased dramatically in recent years.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So...put something out there that was designed to expose Boehner for the teabagging douchenozzle
Fridays Child
Dec 2012
#2
If he lets it pass on mostly democrat votes, then it is passing against GOP votes.
julian09
Dec 2012
#12
then it will just move the fight to debt extension.... gov't shutdown will be the new hostage.. n/t
Mr Peabody
Dec 2012
#8
Tea Party will own the ultimate destruction of the Republican Party as we know it.
Panasonic
Dec 2012
#36
It's stunning that they get away with this, and claim to represent us.
woo me with science
Dec 2012
#55