Senate's Reid prepares bill with $250,000 tax-hike threshold

Comments (6)
Abetterplace wrote:

Real smart Reid, you know the Repubs will not except anything less than a 500 thousand limit.

Dec 28, 2012 11:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Let them go on record as having voted it down. The people support what Obama is trying to do here. They do not support what the Republicans are trying to do.

If our government was being run by practical people, taxes on the wealthy would have gone up. We now have some of the lowest taxes among all developed nations and it shows. Our infrastructure is suffering, our schools are suffering, our healthcare system is suffering, our Middle Class is dying, and we have a mountain of debt. Republicans answer is simply to cut programs and services that help the American people. A better approach would be to raise taxes on those who can afford it, cut spending on programs and services that will cause the least amount of harm, and to find ways of doing what government does more efficiently, like healthcare.

Investing in our country works better than not investing in our country. The Chinese have figured that out and have recently christened a new high-speed rail train. We should do that, but the Republicans won’t let us do things like that anymore. And it’s going to get worse.

No government run by practical, intelligent people would dare allow a healthcare system like ours to exist. On one hand the Republicans say they’re about fiscal responsibility, yet they refuse to change the world’s most inefficient healthcare system. They even passed a bill that forbids Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. If the Republicans really were about responsible budgeting, why wouldn’t they pursue lowing the cost of drug prices for Medicare? It’s because they’re really about serving the rich plutocrats who have taken over our government. The pharmaceutical industries told the Republicans to put that into law to increase their profits. And the Republicans did it, at our expense.

Dec 29, 2012 12:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
AdamSmith wrote:

@flashrooster – Well put.

Dec 29, 2012 2:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
neilc23 wrote:

Without taking into account the significant different “standards in living” from one location to another, it is totally unfair to tax households at the same AGI threshold.

What’s really appalling is that federal bureaucrats receive salary adjustments “up and down” based on where they live. It’s called “Locality Pay” and can be found easily on the Internet by simply Googling it.

If “Locality Pay” is good for federal employees, it should also be good for Americans who work hard for a living.

If it’s go

Dec 29, 2012 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
capinfergie wrote:

@flashrooster

It would be enlightening if you would put your numbers to an Excel spreadsheet. How much do you plan to buy and what programs are you going to fund with the higher taxes? How much money has been spent the past 4 years on “programs” and what are the benefits. The amount of money from a tax increase is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money already thrown at the US in the previous stimulus and QE efforts alone. I’m with you if it would make a difference to Americans, but it won’t. Spending on the wrong programs is a significant part of the problem. Best wishes.

Dec 29, 2012 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
capinfergie wrote:

@flashrooster

It would be enlightening if you would put your numbers to an Excel spreadsheet. How much do you plan to buy and what programs are you going to fund with the higher taxes? How much money has been spent the past 4 years on “programs” and what are the benefits. The amount of money from a tax increase is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money already thrown at the US in the previous stimulus and QE efforts alone. I’m with you if it would make a difference to Americans, but it won’t. Spending on the wrong programs is a significant part of the problem. Best wishes.

Dec 29, 2012 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.