tax burden

The House will vote in a bit on a motion to "disagree with the Senate" on the payroll tax cut. Why is that? Because then House Republicans can spin and lie saying they didn't vote against the tax cut. It's one of the most cowardly moves by a leader playing whore to the extremists in his party.

In 11 days the tax burden for the middle and lower class will go up an estimated $1,000 per year. The radical right, dominated by the hatred fueled Tea Party, care nothing about this. They only care about trying to make President Obama look bad.

Luckily though this just may backfire. What has happened the past few days with the payroll tax cut shows a House Republican Leadership who has no control. They are letting a minority of their caucus rule the entire side of the aisle. Senate Republicans are seeing this and the divide is carrying over into the public stage now.

Democrats have an excellent position here. All they have to do is say "it's this bill or nothing". That can be backed up by the huge Republican support the bill saw in the Senate, coupled with John Boehner saying his people supported it only a few days ago. The Democrats can then turn this into a "party above country" attack against the GOP.

Right now we need Democrats to stand tough and refuse to cave any further on this legislation. They have already surrendered far more than they wanted, while the GOP has given none. The Democrats need to get out there and start controlling the message on this issue and I think a perfect way would be for President Obama to address the nation and tell them "Merry Christmas. Come January 1 you will be paying more in taxes thanks to John Boehner and the House GOP", then at the same time he can go on to actually thank the Senate GOP for working to get something passed.

Get John Boehner on the ropes over this issue and you will see him shed a lot more tears.

Warren Buffett has a great op-ed in today's Times, in which he says it is time for Washington to extend the "shared sacrifice" we hear so much about to the rich, including himself:

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Buffett doesn't hide anything either. He breaks out the raw numbers. Last year Buffett paid 17.4% in federal taxes, while the employees in his office paid an average 36%.

Stop and think about that for a moment. The tax burden for the richest people in this country is more than 1/2 of what the bottom 99% of this country carries. Not only that, but we have a big name in the top 1% here saying that it isn't fair to the rest of us and must be changed.

The Economic Policy Institute has released a chart showing the average overall tax rates in 1979, 1992 and 2007. The picture isn’t pretty.

While the tax rate for you, me and the other 99% of this country has remained pretty much the same over the years, the tax rate for the top 1% has seen a nice decrease in their tax burden and the top 400 households have seen a reduction that leaves them paying less a share than the rest of the country.

How is this fair?

To answer that question, we must throw out everything we know about math and enter the world of GOP economics. You constantly hear the GOP say that these poor rich people have to pay the most in taxes. Of course they do because they also earn the biggest chunk of the money in this country. But for things to be fair, we mustn’t look at total amounts, but rather shares. You and me haven’t thrived off the American dream, but we are paying a bigger share than those who have. The people who need the money the most and would be more out to spend any extra money, which would boost our economy, see a bigger percentage of their earnings go to taxes than the ultra-rich.

The lowest tax levels since 1950?

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

So go ahead baggers and protest the Democrats and their “high taxes”. And let’s have the Republicans out there saying “the Republican Party will lower your taxes”. We all know the truth that historically the party that has raised taxes is the Republican Party, unless you happen to be in that top 2% of the economic wealth of our nation. Of course most of those people are out there saying they should be paying more in taxes.

Rick Perry was one of the heroes of that whole “Tea Party” crap, speaking out against the stimulus and rejecting part of it. Now governor secession  wants federal money to cover – well the stuff that would have been covered by the rejected stimulus funds:

Now that the state is dire straits, however, Perry is asking the federal government for a loan to cover the very expenses the rejected stimulus money would have paid for.

While Perry accepted most of the roughly $17 billion in stimulus funds allocated for Texas, the governor in March rejected $555 million that would have covered state unemployment benefits. Perry said he was not accepting the money because the state would have been obligated to expand its unemployment coverage, creating too much of a long term tax burden.

So there you go tea partiers, you got a new target. And while your picketing the Lone star hypocrite, be sure to take a look at that Governor’s mansion, which just so happens is being repaired by ---- wait for it ---- STIMULUS MONEY!!!