home

Progressive Agenda: How About Some Progressive Taxation?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:38:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Earlier I wrote about President Obama's boasting about his progressive accomplishments. What he can't boast about yet is any accomplishments regarding making our tax system more progressive. And it's not like this is an unpopular part of the the progressive agenda. Citing a poll (one of many) showing strong support for increasing taxes on the rich and corporations, Matt Yglesias writes:

[H]igher Social Security taxes for the rich, higher income taxes for the rich, higher corporate income tax[. . . .] That’s pretty much an aggressively leveling agenda. Broad tax increases are deemed unacceptable, as are broad reductions in retirement program spending (even when formulated as changes to the retirement age), as are cuts to defense and cuts to federal education spending. That’s what the public wants. [. . .] I don’t see why a practical politician would do anything other than talk about these measures.

(Emphasis supplied.) That is precisely what a good progressive politician would be talking about right now. That and jobs. Hello? Anyone? Bueller?

Speaking for me only

< Who Cares What Pols Think About The Cordoba Center? | Hillary For SecDef? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Progressive Agenda: How About Some Progressive Taxation? | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    They fear making (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:54:35 AM EST
    the rich sad for a moment and they fear trying to "justify" such actions.  Instead, let us spend every moment of every day arguing the emotionally charged proximity of religion.  If we make the fighting really big everyone can forget for a moment that they are homeless and a little bit hungry.

    someone wrote last year, (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    can't remember whon, but it was a biting essay, that 'progressive' is nothing but a brand name now. Accomplishments aren't what progressives do.

    Once again why I'm an old-line liberal, not a progressive.

    can't remember whom* sry (none / 0) (#3)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:59:08 AM EST


    Parent
    The problem is (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:31:47 AM EST
    no one can define rich...

    Every time I have seen any of these things it was always the middle class who hit.

    I bet (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by PatHat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    if you start at those making $250k or more, there will be most of the "middle class" that will be happy with it.

    Instead of arguing the point at which progressive taxation occurs, let's reinstate it and deal with any excesses later.

    Unless someone doesn't want to progressively tax the wealthy...in which case, arguing about who is rich is a good delaying tactic.

    Parent

    We can pass it and argue at the same time (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    Let the GOP defend millionaires and the Dems defend working Americans.

    Parent
    This is exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TomStewart on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:59:29 AM EST
    Let the Republican defend the rich and well to do, and the Dems stick up for the poor, and working and middle class who get it in the shorts each and every time. That I would love to see, but then FDR is dead isn't he?

    Parent
    Looking at Rep. Rangel's balance (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:04:52 PM EST
    sheet[just an example] a couple days ago, can't see why any federal Rep. or Sen. is likely to vote in favor of raising taxes on self and colleagues--and contributors.

    Parent
    Charlie Rangel did, in 1993 (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    One of the reasons I'm with Charlie.

    Parent
    Charlie got rich on a (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    Congressman's pay...

    It is just amazing how good these guys are at money management.

    Parent

    Look at some exceptions in the IRC (none / 0) (#25)
    by coast on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    and you will see that contributors are well taken care of when taxes are raised.

    Parent
    As long as the Demos (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    are pushing for letting illegal immigrants flooding the country and depressing wages that isn't gonna work so well.

    I wonder if I am the only regular here who was a union member in their working life??

    For some reason I think SUO and Dadler are/were but none beyond that....

    Parent

    I was a Teamster (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    and a member of the Amalgamated Meatcutters..

    And it's funny: in all that time I never came across anyone who lovingly embraced every plank in the Republican platform, the way you seem to. Maybe you can link us to some official union statements that prove there are more you out there than I previously suspected..

    Also, again, I have to ask, what's the latest Fatwa from Right Central on how to address that other major wage depressing phenomenon, outsourcing?

    Parent

    i tried to form a Union (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by TomStewart on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    and got fired for it. Does that count?

    My father was a union member for 30+years, and I'm all for them, there should be more. Tell you what, lets go after those who employ the undocumented, and form unions for all workers, farmer workers, fast food workers, everyone and give them all the protections they are entitled to, I'm for that.

    Not sure where you're going with this Jim, but then I rarely am very sure where your headed when you hit the side rails.

    Parent

    Where he's going (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    is that after eight years of carrying water for "the have's and have mores" he's suddenly magically transformed into an unctuous, salt-of-the-earth man of the people.

    Parent
    Jondee (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:56:09 PM EST
    outside of defense prove that I supported Bush on any social liberal issue. You cannot.

    Please quit making things up.

    Parent

    Let's start with your (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    Save Terri campaign, consistent defense of people like "Ole Jerry" and thunderous silence about the machinations of the religious right, whenever the subject came up here, and go from there..

    Saying "Im a social liberal" once a week in the middle of another oily, Zig Zigler inspired attempt at convincing people how moderate you are, aint gonna cut it.

    Parent

    I said provide some proof (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:17:39 PM EST
    All you do is make claims. And really, don't you think that's causing you some credibility problems?

    The Schiavo issue had nothing to do with politics unless you want to embrace euthanization as a Left wing position. Or if you want to embrace allowing a spouse to pull the plug on life support when there are parents of the spouse ready and willing to continue supporting the spouse on life support... particularly when there is all kinds of questions about the actions of the spouse wanting the plug pulled.

    So take your phony baloney claims somewhere else. We've heard'em all before and are tired ofn them.

    Parent

    Come to think of it (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:33:33 PM EST
    Obama did embrace pulling the plug on old people and his dealthcare will wound Medicare to the point we will have Death Panels to supervise rationing.....

    So yes, it is a Left Wing position, but not a Social Liberal position.

    Thanks Jondee. I learn something everyday.

    lol

    Parent

    Death panels lol (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    you just cant help yourself, can you?

    If Rush and Sean say it, it HAS to be true.

    Parent

    Since you asked (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:36:10 PM EST
    US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Parent
    Is that "we" (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    like the Queen Victoria royal "we" or the mouse in the pocket, Anthony Perkins in Psycho "we"?

    Parent
    It's on matters (none / 0) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:08:52 AM EST
    such as progressive taxation where your colors fly for all to see.

    Parent
    My Father and Father In Law (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:01:06 PM EST
    were Teamsters and I can remember the problems and small amount of violence when the local factory voted the union in.

    I can also remember the huge impact a $.80/hour raise made on our standard of living and my Dad's thrill at having a "pension plan."

    I was IBEW in my first factory job right out of high school and was amazed at all the benefits I had and the money I was making in Chicago as compared to what I would make at some of the factories "back home."

    But then I talked the Navy into taking me in and sending me to school so my union days were over. But I have never forgot the importance of a union.

    My point is a broader point. How can union people not understand the damage that a flood of illegal workers do to the wages and jobs held by others, including both union and non-union. How can you ever organize or strike when there are hundreds willing to do whatever and accept whatever management wants to give them?

    I think it is because many union people, especially those outside the trades, don't see the illegal's as competition.

    Zorba knows that no illegal is going to take his teaching job. Government workers, federal, state and local know they are safe. Healthcare workers aren't concerned.... And the list goes on. "I'm safe" so let's don't worry about the entry level jobs that use to exist.

    Besides, having their stomachs and wallets full they can concentrate on the "higher goals" of life.

    The so-called Progressive Movement has moved away from the workers.

    Jondee.... The meat cutters are among the most impacted by illegal immigrants. Do you not stand with your union brothers??? Based on your previous comments I know that you do not.

    Tom... That works for me. I have commented many times that we need some real draconian measures taken against the employers. And not fines. Jail time. The organize and sign'em up and then shut down the endless stream of illegal immigrants and we'll be a long way towards solving the problems.

    Parent

    Again (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    what do want to do about outsourcing and the outsourcers? Let's see some evidence that that phenomenon effects workers wages in this country LESS than the presence of the illegals..  

    And, If I thought you were anything other than a dyed-in-the-wool, a time-tested, GOP waterboy, I MIGHT take your question about the fate of my brethren seriously.

    As it stands now, my assessment is that you're an ex-working man afflicted with a serious case of the working-in-the-big-house, overseer syndrome..

    Parent

    Btw, Why are you so opposed (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    to The Fairness Doctrine when right wing radio is so consistently anti-union?

    I'd think you'd exhibit a little more solidarity with your union brothers.

    Parent

    Because I believe in freedom of speach (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    The so-called Fairness Doctrine is not fair. If the Left's positions and spokespeople can't survive on the air.... tough. Maybe they need to examine their positions... say abandon Open Borders... and people would start paying attention to them.

    Parent
    If American workers (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    and their spokespersons cant survive with "Open Borders" - and "supporters" who love anti-union, pro-monopoly right wing radio - maybe they need to examine their positions..

    Maybe try to get jobs as paid houseboys for the conservative movement, for instance..

    Parent

    The Fairness Doctrine (none / 0) (#82)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:12:40 AM EST
    is about freedom of speech.

    Absent the doctrine, speech goes to the highest bidder.

    Parent

    That's a separate issue (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    that we haven't discussed.

    My position would be that any corp/company can outsource but they would receive no tax breaks and get no government contracts.

    Do you still beat your wife?

    Parent

    only when she starts talking (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:35:11 PM EST
    about the six days of creation, overly "secular" Marxist Presidents and gets flippant about outsourcing as if it were a trivial issue compared to this weeks wingnut talking point..

    Parent
    Beating your wife (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    is a trivial issue?

    lol

    I answered your question directly and without qualification.

    Quit whining.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    commie, secular, marxist Presidents..and commie climate scientists all in league to weaken America..

    That's just the kind of clear thinking and brain power Organized Labor in this country needs..:)

    Parent

    It is all there in (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    black and white.

    You can't play this game, can you?

    BTW - Why did you leave the meat cutters?

    Parent

    black and white (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:20:03 PM EST
    like Genesis and Deuteronomy, as interpreted by Jimmy Swaggart..

    We wont get into the Right's other "black and white" problem. Table it for a later discussion..

    Parent

    You watched Swaggart? (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:33:12 PM EST
    Now I understand your problems.

    hahahaha

    Parent

    I wouldn't be so fast (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:39:55 PM EST
    to scoff at the folk the U.S.S Wingnut would be sunk without..

    You and your fellow social liberals need Jimmy and Pat and the rest bad..That's the sad part..

    Digging yourselves into a dumbed-down hole you'll never get out of..

    Parent

    Thank you very much, but (none / 0) (#34)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    I was a union member.  Of course, that was the state teachers' union, and the NEA, which I would assume you would not really consider a "union" (apologies if you do), but I paid my dues and was represented.

    Parent
    I was a union member ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:35:22 PM EST
    ... back in the day.

    I wonder if I am the only regular here who was a union member in their working life??

    For some reason I think SUO and Dadler are/were but none beyond that....

    You think a lot of things, and the reason is obvious.  It's much easier to make accusations when you base them on speculation rather than facts.

    Parent

    You obviously have reading (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:27:36 PM EST
    comprehension problems.

    I wrote:

    I wonder if I am the only regular here who was a union member in their working life??

    That is not even close to accusing anyone. If I had wanted to accuse I would have written:

    I am the only regular here was a union member in their working life.

    See the difference?

    Now, care to tell us what union and why you left it?

    Parent

    it was probably infiltrated (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    by "the Left", which had concerns that were trivial compared to the shear genius of right wing radio.

    Parent
    Are you Yman? (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    Who knew?

    Still can't come up with a response to my outsourcing and "Fairness Doctrine" positions, eh?

    ROFLMAO

    Parent

    Not at all - it's just a writing probem (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    To wit:

    For some reason I think SUO and Dadler are/were but none beyond that ....

    To be fair, you did say "I think ..." ...

    ... but that's how cowards often make accusations.  Besides, ...

    ... it's not a believable qualifier.

    Parent

    Calling someone a coward (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:41:11 PM EST
    is considered fighting words and is a personal attack.

    That you are incapable of engaging in casual conversation without engaging in personal attacks defines you and establishes what you are.

    I won't go further as I don't want to embarrass myself.

    Parent

    Take another Xanax (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:55:24 PM EST
    Besides - if I really wanted to call you out, I could point out that I didn't call you a coward.  I just said "that's how cowards often make accusations".  Then I could suggest that maybe it was just a "reading comprehension" problem.

    But that would be pretty spineless.

    Parent

    You started the attack (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    for no reason and now you continue it.

    OK, we know you.

    Parent

    Who is this "we" ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:54:40 PM EST
    ... you keep talking about?  Do you hear voices, ...

    ... or it it the "royal" we?

    Parent

    I think anyone who reads your comments (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 07:57:19 PM EST
    could be wrong.... Jondee is always lurking

    lol

    Parent

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:04:18 AM EST
    Democrats are not pushing to flood the country with immigrants.  If anyone wants a big supply of immigrants it's Republicans to keep wages depressed.

    I know you have a few decades under your belt, but, I swear, the stuff that tumbles out of you tells me you were born yesterday.

    You often sound like right-wing chain email.

    Parent

    How about if you make 1 million a year? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    Would you agree that that person is wealthy?

    Parent
    Yes, but the administration's definition (none / 0) (#6)
    by coast on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    has consistently been $200K to $250K and above.  That range could be considered wealthy in say Kansas, but not in NYC or San Fran.

    Parent
    $250K (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    may not make you wealthy in NYC.  But it's certainly at a minimum "upper middle class".

    I know a lot of people who live in NYC on a lot less than $250K/year - and they're doing just fine.  You don't have to send your kids to private school...

    Parent

    Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:55:44 AM EST
    I wouldn't call it wealthy in NY, but it is certainly well off.

    Whether they should pay more in taxes or not, hard to say until regressive federal spending is addressed.

    Parent

    The question is (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    How much you need to save/invest to make the same wage when you retire that you made while working.

    Contrary to popular opinion your expenses do not go away at age 65...

    And I speaking from personal experience while blogging from my palatial retirement compound, ctafish farm and fresh vegetable stand....

    Parent

    Retire? (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    The people making 40 grand can barely stay afloat...and we're supposed to worry about how progressive taxation will effect the 250k a year crew's retirement?

    That being said...I'm all for aggressive cuts to regressive spending first, then see what the books look like and what revenue we need to raise and act accordingly.

    Parent

    Enlightened self-interest (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    should be everyone's goal.

    The problem is that it won't stop with the $250K people.

    Parent

    Just asking for parameters (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    Ok, how about 500K a year. Would you agree they are wealthy?

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#10)
    by coast on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:49:38 AM EST


    Parent
    400K? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:52:29 AM EST


    Parent
    See Genesis 18:20 and following! (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:02:26 PM EST


    Parent
    That's the camel, needle, rich man one? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:15:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope. Abraham negotiating w/God (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    re Sodom and Gomorrah. God says "50," but settles for "10."  But Abraham can't even scour up that many.

    Parent
    Boy (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    the Bible is a bunch of malarkey. I like the Greek myths better.

    The Prometheus myth is a much better story than that.

    Parent

    At least you can say that in public w/o (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    fear of reprisal.  Not sure what will happen to the blogger you cite.  

    Parent
    Why don't you compromise at $350-$375K (none / 0) (#11)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:52:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Still negotiating (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:52:46 AM EST


    Parent
    Taking into consideration (none / 0) (#37)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:02:16 PM EST
    that highly paid individuals can defer taxes if they spend less money than they make.

    Many bankers, executives, professionals in arts, sports, etc., or anyone with enormous compensation participate in this concept.

    Any surplus income more than $150,000 greater than you living expense can be deferred.

    This can reduce your tax burden from 50% down to less than 10%.

    Individual IRAs, SEP (self employment plans) and/or KEOGH are attractive to defer income.

    Parent

    Example? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by coast on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    All the methods mentioned above have limits to how much you are able to defer based on the individuals earned income.  Only someone who has a modest income, substantial deductions, and the discipline to sockaway the maximum allowed could reduce their tax liability in the proportions you claim.

    Where do you get a 50% tax burden when max federal rate is 35%?

    "Any surplus income more than $150,000 greater than you living expense can be deferred"....Is that from the Wesley Snipes book on tax preparation?  Can you please point me to the Internal Revenue Code Section that states this?  I will have to pass it on to my clients.  They will likely first file a suit against me for neglegence in preparation of their tax returns, but they will also get a boat full of money when they amend their prior years' returns.

    Parent

    Deferred Compensation Plans (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:45:10 PM EST
    which are issued by large and small companies to a select group of employees, for example, usually the top 5% earners whereby their money can go into Treasuries, Mutual Funds, and for as long as it is not withdrawn it is not taxed.  

    This is use mostly for high salaries and bonuses.

    However, these Deferred Compensation Plans, for example, Lehman Brothers, do not provide protection from creditors is the company should go bankrupt, and differs from a 401K in that way.

    So, for example, if you put away multi-million dollar bonuses per year for twenty years, you might well be able to gage, based on yearly tax rates, when it would be most advantages for you to exit the account.  

    This was first designed for Nat King Cole who complained bitterly about paying 80% of his salary in taxes.

    Parent

    You are correct on deferred comp plan (none / 0) (#74)
    by coast on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:58:04 PM EST
    but that was never mentioned in your initial post.  The deferred plans mentioned do not provide the benefits you noted.

    Parent
    Benefits??? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:01:01 PM EST
    What we were talking about is 'deferred' tax benefits, or so I thought.

    What benefits are you referring to?

    Parent

    Reread my post (none / 0) (#78)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:20:17 PM EST
    my post. . .

    anyone with enormous compensation participate in this concept [deferred taxes]

    example:  if they earn salary and bonus of say, $10M, and spend $3M for living expenses, then, they clearly have more than $150,000 in excess of their living expenses and it can go be tax deferred.

    Bush's tax cuts, the 50% incorrect for this year.  Hopefully, it will increase in the near future for the high earners --

    but, my original point, was stating that there are so many loopholes for the top 5% that taxes may not be seen for a great many years.

    Now I am wondering, what if one of these top earners has a deferred compensation tax package now, say, in the mid-20M for instance.  And, he or she, dies this year, 2010 -- then what happens -- is that money passed on in their Estate without any tax ever being paid?

    Parent

    Also, I would suggest anyone (none / 0) (#75)
    by coast on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 07:22:48 PM EST
    looking into entering into a deferred comp arrangement talk with a CPA beforehand.  409(a) does not allow for you to pull the money out "when its most advantages [sic] for you".  If this type of clause were included in your arrangement all the income would be subject to tax and possibly a penalty.  409(a) has specific requirements that must be followed, one being a fixed schedule of payments, if the arrangement is to be valid.

    Parent
    I was thinking of Section 457 (none / 0) (#79)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:27:48 PM EST


    Parent
    The other taxing authorities (none / 0) (#83)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 10:12:42 AM EST
    should be considered in addition to the 35%, state taxes, and city taxes, can amount to probably close to, if not at, 50%.

    Parent
    Only if there is a Beer Summit. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by coast on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:53:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Whatever the defintion of wealthy, I (none / 0) (#9)
    by observed on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    would like it to include the pompous talking heads who dominate our discourse---people who pretend to be  just like you and me, but who in reality probably don't even buy their own lattes and frappucinos.

    Parent
    Depends on the timing (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    If they do it every year then they are well off, but not rich.

    I well remember I had a year in the mid 70's when I pulled in near $60K, mostly in commissions. Even with averaging the tax killed me.

    The next year was not so good. It would have been great if I could have paid less in taxes and more to save for the future.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#50)
    by me only on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:18:50 PM EST
    If Bill Gates made nothing next year would that make him poor?

    Wealth is what you are worth.  It might have something to do with what you earn.  I realize this might be a hard concept.

    Parent

    Raising taxes (none / 0) (#18)
    by TomStewart on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    is never popular with congress, even if it is on the rich and corporations. Obama won't do it because the mean Republicans will not nice things about him (you know, just what they would have said anyway), the Democratic congress won't do it for the same reason (Hey, we have to get along with these guys!).

    Beside, Obama doesn't really believe in it anyway. He has shown, over and over again, no real progressive instincts, and a willingness to sell out progressives and liberals if he just might, maybe, get a Republican vote. Remember he's not a progressive of a liberal, he's center right and figures the liberals really don't have another place to go. He's forgot who brought him to the dance and the progressives/liberals won't remind him.

    Ironically (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:02:10 PM EST
    I think this will actually happen (taxes go up) precisely because they don't have to "do it".

    If they do nothing at all, which they seem to be pretty good at, the tax cuts will expire.  They don't need any votes - Republican or Democrat - on this.

    Parent

    He hasn't made taxation more progressive??? (none / 0) (#28)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:25:32 PM EST


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by TomStewart on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    hasn't made anything more 'progressive'.

    Parent
    Progressive Agenda: How About Some Progressive Taxation? | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment