Defining the Conception of Rich Upward......

[KoKo]

the good life (photo: Phil of Photos)

The Senate’s 5% millionaire’s tax to pay for the American Jobs Act is really a tax on rich people displacing a tax on other rich people. For example, the cancellation of fossil fuel subsidies, which was in Obama’s version of the bill, will go away, because a few oil-state Democrats don’t like them. The cap on itemized deductions goes away, too, as it did in 2009 when Charlie Rangel dismissed it out of hand as a pay-for for the Affordable Car Act. Too many liberal non-profits make their money off of charitable deductions and don’t want to see them constrained, I suspect. The entire millionaire’s tax was initiated to ensure uniform Senate Democratic support, to take away a talking point about the only bipartisan option being rejection of the bill when it comes up for a vote next week. And even then, Ben Nelson is likely to bolt, so this is a fool’s errand.

I don’t have a problem with a millionaire’s tax. But I do think it’s problematic to define rich upward to this degree, as if American families making, say, half a million a year are overtaxed.

The Senate’s 5% millionaire’s tax to pay for the American Jobs Act is really a tax on rich people displacing a tax on other rich people. For example, the cancellation of fossil fuel subsidies, which was in Obama’s version of the bill, will go away, because a few oil-state Democrats don’t like them. The cap on itemized deductions goes away, too, as it did in 2009 when Charlie Rangel dismissed it out of hand as a pay-for for the Affordable Car Act. Too many liberal non-profits make their money off of charitable deductions and don’t want to see them constrained, I suspect. The entire millionaire’s tax was initiated to ensure uniform Senate Democratic support, to take away a talking point about the only bipartisan option being rejection of the bill when it comes up for a vote next week. And even then, Ben Nelson is likely to bolt, so this is a fool’s errand.

I don’t have a problem with a millionaire’s tax. But I do think it’s problematic to define rich upward to this degree, as if American families making, say, half a million a year are overtaxed.

The Senate’s 5% millionaire’s tax to pay for the American Jobs Act is really a tax on rich people displacing a tax on other rich people. For example, the cancellation of fossil fuel subsidies, which was in Obama’s version of the bill, will go away, because a few oil-state Democrats don’t like them. The cap on itemized deductions goes away, too, as it did in 2009 when Charlie Rangel dismissed it out of hand as a pay-for for the Affordable Car Act. Too many liberal non-profits make their money off of charitable deductions and don’t want to see them constrained, I suspect. The entire millionaire’s tax was initiated to ensure uniform Senate Democratic support, to take away a talking point about the only bipartisan option being rejection of the bill when it comes up for a vote next week. And even then, Ben Nelson is likely to bolt, so this is a fool’s errand.

I don’t have a problem with a millionaire’s tax. But I do think it’s problematic to define rich upward to this degree, as if American families making, say, half a million a year are overtaxed.

MORE.....
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/10/07/defining-the-conception-of-rich-upward/