Challenge: Raise Taxes on Your Rich Selves Now!
All of the major Democratic presidential candidates would allow the 2003 tax cuts for wealthier households to expire. Most support raising the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. Some want to raise taxes on capital gains and other investment income.
On Capitol Hill, a leading Democrat - Rep. Charles Rangel - has proposed an additional tax on wealthy people and a levy on hedge fund managers to help pay for easing taxes on the middle class.
In 2005 (most recent year available) it took income of $145,283 to be in the top 5%, according to IRS data. Members of Congress earned a base salary of $162,100 in 2005, putting each member of Congress into at least the top 5% category and making them part of the group most would agree is "the rich."
Given Bill Clinton's $9-10 million in income from speeches in 2006 (see a list here), the Clintons are probably the kind of super-rich Americans in the top 1/10 of 1% that John Edwards has in mind when he unveiled his plan to raise taxes on the rich: "The top 300,000 income-earners in America now make more than the bottom 150 million combined. Our tax code has shifted most of the burden onto the backs of working Americans."
When a presidential candidate like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, or a tax-raising member of Congress like Rep. Rangel, tells us that they think taxes should be raised on the rich (which includes themselves), isn't it a fair question to ask them how much they voluntarily added to their tax bill this year, and how much they plan to add next year? After all, if they think "the rich" should pay more taxes, shouldn't they already be doing so voluntarily?
Challenge: If taxes increases for "the rich" are a good thing, the members of Congress and presidential candidates (all part of either "the rich" or "super-rich") don't have wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire or for Congress to pass new tax legislation, they can immediately raise taxes on themselves voluntarily by making a gift to the U.S. Treasury.
Here is the link to the Treasury's website with instructions for politicians, presidential candidates, or any citizen who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government into an official account called "Gifts to the United States."
On Capitol Hill, a leading Democrat - Rep. Charles Rangel - has proposed an additional tax on wealthy people and a levy on hedge fund managers to help pay for easing taxes on the middle class.
In 2005 (most recent year available) it took income of $145,283 to be in the top 5%, according to IRS data. Members of Congress earned a base salary of $162,100 in 2005, putting each member of Congress into at least the top 5% category and making them part of the group most would agree is "the rich."
Given Bill Clinton's $9-10 million in income from speeches in 2006 (see a list here), the Clintons are probably the kind of super-rich Americans in the top 1/10 of 1% that John Edwards has in mind when he unveiled his plan to raise taxes on the rich: "The top 300,000 income-earners in America now make more than the bottom 150 million combined. Our tax code has shifted most of the burden onto the backs of working Americans."
When a presidential candidate like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, or a tax-raising member of Congress like Rep. Rangel, tells us that they think taxes should be raised on the rich (which includes themselves), isn't it a fair question to ask them how much they voluntarily added to their tax bill this year, and how much they plan to add next year? After all, if they think "the rich" should pay more taxes, shouldn't they already be doing so voluntarily?
Challenge: If taxes increases for "the rich" are a good thing, the members of Congress and presidential candidates (all part of either "the rich" or "super-rich") don't have wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire or for Congress to pass new tax legislation, they can immediately raise taxes on themselves voluntarily by making a gift to the U.S. Treasury.
Here is the link to the Treasury's website with instructions for politicians, presidential candidates, or any citizen who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government into an official account called "Gifts to the United States."
For example, what if Edwards, Rangel or Clinton proposed legislation to force everybody to "donate" 5 pints of blood every year. Wouldn't it be a lot more credible if they were already donating blood themselves right now voluntarily, and not waiting until they were forced to "donate" blood by their own legislation?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home