From the office of Del. Kathy Szeliga:
I just heard from Congressman Andy Harris that he will be hosting two Town Hall meetings on Monday, September 19.
Come get an update from Andy about what is going on in Washington DC. Also, bring your questions and comments to share with the Congressman and his staff.
Harford County
3 PM to 4 PM
Fallston Branch Library
1461 Fallston Road, Fallston, MD 21047
Baltimore County
5 PM to 6 PM
Cockeysville Branch Library
9833 Greenside drive
Cockeysville, MD 21030
I will be attending both meetings and hope to see you Monday.
If you cannot be there but have a question you need answered, please feel free to send me an email, kathy.szeliga@house.state.md.us
I would be happy to pass along your comments and questions to Congressman Harris.
Serving you,
Delegate Kathy Szeliga
I have a question for Congressman Harris: how can he defend huge tax breaks for billionaires and corporations while I, a middle class taxpayer, bears the brunt? How can he justify that only 400 families control more wealth than 150,000,000 Americans?
At least you ADMIT ! to being a liberal
I would have to agree with the first comment. Just another republican coming to town to give us a song and dance. Can’t wait to see the redistricting……..
They are not billionaires. They are not rich. They are not elite. They are not campaign donors.
They are “job creators.”
Get with the program.
Noble: You are so correct, they are job creators. Unfortunately the jobs they create are in CHINA.
Job Creators? Then why is there so much unemployment. oh, that’s right..Freshman Andy Harris is here to help.
The Buffett Rule:
•On Monday, the President will lay out a balanced approach to further reduce our nation’s deficit and get our fiscal house in order, based on the values of shared responsibility and shared sacrifice.
•The government must live within its means in order to make the critical investments we need to immediately get folks back to work and put our economy on a stronger footing for the future.
•A balanced approach includes many of the proposals the President has previously discussed — closing tax loopholes for oil companies and hedge fund managers and asking the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share. A balanced approach also includes difficult spending cuts and making adjustments to strengthen programs like Medicare and Medicaid for future generations.
•That is why the President is calling on the Congress to undertake comprehensive tax reform to simplify the system, make it more fair and efficient, and lay a stronger foundation for economic growth. On Monday, the President will lay out principles for tax reform.
•One of the key principles is the “Buffett Rule” — No house¬hold making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay. The Buffett Rule applies to the top 0.3% of the wealthiest Americans.
•As Warren Buffett has said, it’s not fair for the super-rich to “pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter.”
•And Warren Buffett is not alone among the very wealthy in paying only a small share of income in taxes.
•22,000 millionaires — making more than $1 million annually — paid less than 15 percent of their income in taxes in 2009.
•And the top 400 richest Americans, all making over $110 million per year and making an average of $271 million per year, paid only 18 percent of their income in income taxes in 2008. In fact, since the mid-1990s, the share of income paid by the wealthiest 400 Americans has fallen by nearly 40 percent, from 29.9% in 1995, even as their average incomes roughly quadrupled.
•Too many middle class Americans pay more than this — especially when payroll taxes are taken into account.
•The fact is, it’s not fair to reduce the deficit by shifting the burden on the middle class, older Americans, or those who can least afford it.
•Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans believe the burden of deficit reduction should only come from spending cuts to critical programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and refuse to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share to get our fiscal house in order and reduce the deficit.
•To grow our economy and create jobs now, we need a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
Too bad Andy Harris is going to vote against this. Im sure Dr Harris falls into the Buffett Rule.
Do you understand the difference between income tax and capital gains tax?
I understand that if my income is from capital gains, that is the tax rate I pay. If you earn a salary or own a small business, that is not a good deal for you. Is your income from capital gains?
Do you honestly believe that capital gains, which is probably the majority of Buffett’s income, should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary earned income? If not, then he should be paying a lower rate than his receptionist.
Phil: Now you get it! Yes his and all billionaires’ income should be taxed as the same rate as yours and mine. Why should 400 families have more wealth than 150,000,000 working Americans? If you think they should, then you are either a billionaire/millionaire or a stooge for those that are.
Hey Proud,
Not Phil, but I would like to respond to this as well. I am all for the millionaires and billionaires paying the same rate as everyone else. Of course, I am for everyone paying the same rate. There are far too many people that don’t pay anything.
As for your other statement, “Why should 400 families have more wealth than 150,000,000 working Americans? If you think they should, then you are either a billionaire/millionaire or a stooge for those that are.” – Well, Why shouldn’t they? They, or their family, earned it through hard work, smart investments, or luck (or possible other methods). No matter, they still earned it. I am not a stooge for any of them. I am a proponent of capitalism. I think that if everyone is taxed the same, including those that are rich, then things will be better off for us all. Too many people are expecting handouts (my opinion) and don’t want to work hard to try and get it. Get off your butts, get to work, make something for yourself and for your family.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
It sounds to me like Proud is in favor of redistributing the wealth. Big surprise (not).
Of course, by raising the capital gains tax rate, millions of folks who are not millionaires will pay more taxes and both the rich and non-rich will have less money to invest in corporations (which means fewer jobs created and saved), but that’s not a problem for him as long as he feels like he’s putting the screws to the rich. Jealousy is not pretty.
Paul: You said, “Too many people are expecting handouts (my opinion) and don’t want to work hard to try and get it.” Let us take corporate welfare as an example. I define that as “Corporate welfare can be defined as pork-barrel spending, unjustified government subsidies, and unjustified tax breaks.”
“The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It’s more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care).”
“Average taxpayers pick up an expensive tab for corporate welfare expenditures. Government spending for corporate welfare programs far exceeds government spending for social programs.
1. Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)
2. Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures )”
Also, remember all that stimulus money spent by BUSH that did not go to job creation? So let’s not talk about handouts (again) until you develop some perspective on the subject.
Phil states that people, “…will have less money to invest in corporations (which means fewer jobs created and saved).” The only problem with that Keynesian concept is that most of the jobs that are theoretically generated with these investments end up either in China or as huge bonuses for the corporate leaders.
In 1980 corporate CEOs made only thirty times that of their workers. By 1996 it had grown to 187 times of an average worker. In 2000 it had grown to over 500 times of what the average guy would earn. Look up the Gini Index of Income Inequality. If that is what Phil considers fair, then call me “in favor of redistributing the wealth.”
Hey Proud,
It appears that you are assuming I am in favor of handouts to corporations. I have never said I was nor have I insinuated that. If you read that into what I said, I think you may need to re-read it because that is not what I said nor what I meant (though I have stated that I am in favor of offering tax breaks to companies that are solely based in the united states in other threads, which I still believe in). I do not want hand outs to individuals or corporations. So, my point is I am not in favor of handouts to anyone, while it appears that you are in favor of handouts to some. Perhaps you should not be discussing this are you seem to have a biased viewpoint.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
Paul: You may differentiate “handouts” to the poor and to the rich, but if you are against one you must logically be opposed to both. I don’t know how else to understand your statement of “Too many people are expecting handouts (my opinion) and don’t want to work hard to try and get it.” Corporations certainly expect public handouts in the form of tax breaks, contracts that they do not bid on, huge subsidizes, etc. Since corporations are now legally persons, don’t you think you should use the same criteria on them too?
You have a nice day.
Hey Proud,
“Paul: You may differentiate “handouts” to the poor and to the rich, but if you are against one you must logically be opposed to both.” – I am opposed to both. I actually stated that when I said, ‘I do not want hand outs to individuals or corporations.’ – I don’t know what you are trying to argue here.
“I don’t know how else to understand your statement of “Too many people are expecting handouts (my opinion) and don’t want to work hard to try and get it.” Corporations certainly expect public handouts in the form of tax breaks, contracts that they do not bid on, huge subsidizes, etc. Since corporations are now legally persons, don’t you think you should use the same criteria on them too?” – Again, I am against handouts. (Except of course, tax breaks to businesses SOLELY based in the US) I do hold them, you, me, the bank president, the bank, GM, Warren Buffet, the bum on the street..I hold everyone to the same standards. The trouble is, in my opinion, people like you that seem to want one side of the political spectrum favore over the other. I have stated repeatedly that I am for taxing all equally and stopping handouts. You still wish to try and twist my words. How much clearer do I need to be. TAX EVERYONE EQUALLY! STOP HANDOUTS TO ALL!
“You have a nice day.” – I usually do.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
PAUL: I guess I just don’t feel statements such as, “Get off your butts, get to work, make something for yourself and for your family” sounds much like equality or even kindly. It sounds as if you are condemning people who, by no fault of their own, are not working. Even you can understand that those types of statements are a red flag to me. You do understand we are in a recession?
Now please explain why someone who makes $100,000,000 a year should pay the same tax rate as one who makes $10,000 a year. How can you advocate the same tax rate for both? Do you really think that a 10% (pick a number) rate for both is equal? The former will still have $90,000,000 which will not inconvenience him, while 10% to the latter will break him. This does make me favor Democrats over the Tea Party/GOP.
You have an especially nice day in your comfort.
Hey Proud,
“PAUL: I guess I just don’t feel statements such as, “Get off your butts, get to work, make something for yourself and for your family” sounds much like equality or even kindly.” – Well, I expect everyone to work, so that is equality. As for kind, irrelevant. I don’t care if you are kind or if you are an ass. If you are working, you have my respect.
“It sounds as if you are condemning people who, by no fault of their own, are not working. Even you can understand that those types of statements are a red flag to me. You do understand we are in a recession?” – You are assuming that the people that are not working because of no fault of their own. I do understand we are in a recession, I also see the paper full of help wanted ads. But, of course, why work when you can sponge off the government(taxpayers) instead of getting a job that you may have to actually work at?As for your red flags, umm, yea, to you, a liberal, expecting everyone to work causes a red flag to be thrown? Interesting.
“Now please explain why someone who makes $100,000,000 a year should pay the same tax rate as one who makes $10,000 a year.” – Umm, fairness, equality. If the tax rate is 10% (just as an example), the person making 100K pays 10K in taxes, while the person making 10K pays 1K in taxes. Yea, I am fine with that. That, to me, is completely fair. I don’t see how anyone, liberal or conservative, could say otherwise.
“How can you advocate the same tax rate for both? Do you really think that a 10% (pick a number) rate for both is equal? The former will still have $90,000,000 which will not inconvenience him, while 10% to the latter will break him. This does make me favor Democrats over the Tea Party/GOP.” – You see it as one still having 90K and the other 9K, I see it as the one paying 10 times the amount the other is paying. Typically, the person that makes the greater salary has worked hard throughout their life, they have sacrificed and went to school while, generally, the person making the lesser amount didn’t go to school and didn’t make work at the job long enough to make the money.
I think the problem here is not the taxes. I see it as a social problem, with one group of citizens educating themselves and sacrificing to get ahead while the other group chooses to take the easy route, and sponge off the government. And before you or anyone else tries to play a race card, it is NOT a race issue, it is a social-economic issue.
“You have an especially nice day in your comfort.” – My comfort? You know nothing about me. I work a full time job and take 12 credits a semester at school for which I am going 100K in debt. Yep, lots of comfort here. What I am doing is sacrificing. See, it can be done. I work hard, I study hard, I sacrifice so in the future I will have what I want. I pay my debts, I pay my taxes. I maintain my credit rating, and I know that because of this, I have a great future. So, yes, I will have an especially nice day, not in my comfort, but in my knowledge that because I am making the correct choices in life, I am making something of myself.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
And one other thing, Proud,
To take your way of thinking to the extreme, shouldn’t only the richest person in the US pay taxes? I mean, how fair is it for Mark Cuban, who is only worth 2 billion, have to pay taxes when Warren Buffet is worth 45 billion. I mean, if they each pay 10 percent, Buffet has to pay 4.5 billion, which is over 2 times what Mark Cuban has.
And then, why should Buffet have to pay? I mean, Bill Gates is worth 54 billion. According to your theory, since Warren doesn’t have anywhere near as much as Bill, Warren shouldn’t pay?
Or, do you get to decide where to draw the line as to who pays? Doesn’t that seem a little biased, unfair, unequal? My idea of have EVERYONE pay the same percentage takes away all the bias, the unfairness, the unequality. But, that probably doesn’t work for you, now would it?
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
PAUL: I am sorry that you do not have the simple compassion to understand that not all people have had the advantages that you obviously had. I am sorry that you cannot understand that someone making 10K cannot afford what Bill Gates can afford. It is commendable that you are working hard to have a bright future, you are so special. I hope that there will still be some jobs left in the US for you, or are you also studying Chinese?
You have a nice day in your superiority.
Hey Proud,
“PAUL: I am sorry that you do not have the simple compassion to understand that not all people have had the advantages that you obviously had.” – What advantages are you talking about? You don’t know me. You don’t know my life story. Please, don’t assume things that you really know nothing about. As for compassion, I don’t need compassion to understand anything.
“I am sorry that you cannot understand that someone making 10K cannot afford what Bill Gates can afford.” – I am sorry you don’t believe in fairness. I am sorry you don’t want everyone to pay their fair share. I am sorry you are not for equality. I do understand the difference between someone making 10K and Bill Gates. I also understand that the person making 10K can make more if they work at it. Work, that’s one hell of a concept. Perhaps if more people out there did it, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
“It is commendable that you are working hard to have a bright future” – I try
“you are so special.” – You are a number of things.
“I hope that there will still be some jobs left in the US for you, or are you also studying Chinese?” – I have a job. I actually stated that, perhaps you should go back to school and maybe learn to comprehend a little?
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
You have a nice day in your superiority.
PAUL: “I don’t need compassion to understand anything.” Oh but you do.
Hey Proud,
“PAUL: “I don’t need compassion to understand anything.” Oh but you do.” – No, I don’t. I need knowledge. You may need compassion, which maybe why you are so biased and seem to promote favoritism and inequality, but I do not.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
I want to through this into the “fair share debate” Some people think fair means equal amounts. Some don’t see why those who make more pay a higher percentage. The later often cite welfare recipients as the ones who they provide for. My point is there are government monies spent on certian services used by the highest earners not at all utilized by the lowest or middle. Simply because of cost. A flat tax does not address these inequities. The same token a progressive tax (like we have requires lines to be drawn. Where is always the debate. SO when someone uses the talking points about fair share one needs to consider a myriad of circumstances that most do not think about!
Hey CDEV,
“I want to through this into the “fair share debate” Some people think fair means equal amounts.” – I have thought about that theory. It just doesn’t make sense. If everyone had to pay the same amoutn, the amount would be so low, to compensate for the lower income individuals, that the rich would be able to get away with virtually paying nothing. I persoanlly believe that anyone thinks that really doesn’t comprehend fairness.
“Some don’t see why those who make more pay a higher percentage. The later often cite welfare recipients as the ones who they provide for.” – I see why it is done, it is simply not fair. Some pay, others don’t.
“My point is there are government monies spent on certian services used by the highest earners not at all utilized by the lowest or middle.” – You are correct here, and the wealthy pay significiantly more than those with lower income. Many, in fact, don’t pay anything at all.
” Simply because of cost. A flat tax does not address these inequities.” – Im not 100% sure if you mean everyone pasy same percentage or everyone pays same amount. If it is the same amount, not at all possible. If it is the same percentage, very possible and workable.
“The same token a progressive tax (like we have requires lines to be drawn. Where is always the debate.” – Yes, where is always the debate. I know many, on both sides of the political line, would disagree with any plan that anyone would come up with.
“SO when someone uses the talking points about fair share one needs to consider a myriad of circumstances that most do not think about!” – You are correct. Thank you (sincerely) for your input into the conversation.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
PAUL: “You may need compassion, which maybe why you are so biased and seem to promote favoritism and inequality, but I do not.´
So Paul, you think it is fair and equal that the 0.3% billionaires club pay at a far less tax rate than you do? What happen to all of that knowledge you supposedly have?
Read what CDEV says about that flat tax plan you favor.
Hey Proud,
“So Paul, you think it is fair and equal that the 0.3% billionaires club pay at a far less tax rate than you do?” – Please, read what I have said over and over. I AM FOR EVERYONE PAYING THE SAME RATE. I don’t know how I can make that any clearer. I do not favor others paying a different rate. I do not find it equal or fair that others pay a different rate.
“What happen to all of that knowledge you supposedly have?” – Umm, its there. I have consistently said the same thing. You have failed, ovr and over and over to comprehend what I have said. I want everyone to pay the same rate. You seem to think I find it fair that the wealthy pay a lower rate, I do not. I want all to pay the same: you, me, the bum on the street, Bill Gates, the governor, Congressman Harris, everyone..same rate…all of us…do you finally understand what I have repeatedly said?
“Read what CDEV says about that flat tax plan you favor.” I have, and I responded to him.
Anyways, have a nice day (and read what I have said and try to understand it this time).
Paul
PAUL: A flat tax or a Fair Tax is NOT fair except in the nether world of the really rich. It would eliminate exemptions, discourage home ownership, etc. Let’s take the Arizona tax proposal change that is a flat tax. “Robert Carreira, et al… All had read the proposed income tax changes and all agreed that there would be some hardships, particularly on seniors and those at the low and middle income level. And they all agreed that eliminating deductions and exemptions would affect many, many more people…People at the lower level of incomes will pay more tax and those at the higher level will pay less.”
On another site: “There has been a lot of opposition to implementing flat tax rates, the main reason being reduction in tax rates, which would mean that individuals who earn higher would pay less. This would drastically reduce government revenues (and increase our debt). Taking into consideration that most of the revenue generated is from income taxes the loss would be huge. If there is a uniform tax rate for individuals and corporations, the government is likely to lose a huge amount of revenue. If there is no backup revenue source, it’s likely to have a catastrophic effect.”
I don’t think that is fair because the less you make, the more taxes have a consequence on the quality of life to say nothing about our debt and how the borrow and spend tea party/GOP is ruining this country. This flat tax concept is a propaganda tool of such organizations as the Heritage Foundation and Freedom Works who are fronts for the 0.3% Club.
Now the Fair Tax would only tax our consumption. It would be like Europe’s VAT tax. Have you ever been to Europe? Do you have any idea what things cost there? The Fair Tax would really hurt consumption and that would destroy the few jobs we have left to say nothing about the Black Market and the crime that would develop.
I favor Fair Share known as the Buffett rule.
Let’s hope that someday all of your knowledge develops into wisdom that, in turn, gives you some compassion.
Have a nice, superior, knowledgeable day.
Hey Proud,
“PAUL: A flat tax or a Fair Tax is NOT fair except in the nether world of the really rich.” – Or it would be fair to everyone, as, well, everyone pays the same amount.
“It would eliminate exemptions, discourage home ownership, etc.” – I am in favor of eliminating exemptions. As for home ownership, if you can’t afford it, don’t buy it.
“Let’s take the Arizona tax proposal change that is a flat tax. “Robert Carreira, et al… All had read the proposed income tax changes and all agreed that there would be some hardships, particularly on seniors and those at the low and middle income level. And they all agreed that eliminating deductions and exemptions would affect many, many more people…People at the lower level of incomes will pay more tax and those at the higher level will pay less.” – Based on what I read, the problem Carreira has is that the Arizona flat tax plan would allow for deductions which would make it so the higher income families would actually pay less. I do not, nor have I ever stated, I was in favor of that. I am in favor of everyone paying the same rate.
“On another site: “There has been a lot of opposition to implementing flat tax rates, the main reason being reduction in tax rates, which would mean that individuals who earn higher would pay less. This would drastically reduce government revenues (and increase our debt).” – I don’t see how everyone paying the same rate would equal the government earning less, unless of course, the rate would be lower. I have never commented on what the rate would be, except in a hypothetical situation. If the rate is same for all, and the rate is at a rate in which the government makes a gain, your argument here is invalid.
“Taking into consideration that most of the revenue generated is from income taxes the loss would be huge. If there is a uniform tax rate for individuals and corporations, the government is likely to lose a huge amount of revenue. If there is no backup revenue source, it’s likely to have a catastrophic effect.” – Again, all would depend on what the tax rate was.
“I don’t think that is fair because the less you make, the more taxes have a consequence on the quality of life to say nothing about our debt and how the borrow and spend tea party/GOP is ruining this country.” – If everyone pays the same rate, the consequences would be equal.
“This flat tax concept is a propaganda tool of such organizations as the Heritage Foundation and Freedom Works who are fronts for the 0.3% Club.” – Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.
“Now the Fair Tax would only tax our consumption. It would be like Europe’s VAT tax.” – I have briefly looked over it, don’t know alot about it, so I don’t have much to say about it.
“Have you ever been to Europe?” – Nope.
“Do you have any idea what things cost there?” – Yep.
“The Fair Tax would really hurt consumption and that would destroy the few jobs we have left to say nothing about the Black Market and the crime that would develop.” – You seem to intertwine your thoughts. Slow down a little. Take some time, relax, then think out a coherent paragraph before you type. All of what you said here is based on what? Your opinion? Oh goody.
“I favor Fair Share known as the Buffett rule.” – Also known as the socialist rule?
“Let’s hope that someday all of your knowledge develops into wisdom that, in turn, gives you some compassion.” – Seriously, stop already. Compassion for who? Those that wish to sponge off the working man? Those that wish to take what is mine and put it in their pockets? Those that don’t pay theiir fair share? Nope, no compassion what so ever. I will use my knowledge that I have, and the knoweldge that I will gain by sacrificing today, to make my future better. Others can do the same. If you want, you too can go get an education.
“Have a nice, superior, knowledgeable day.” – I will indeed have a nice day. I ave never said I am superior to anyone. I don’t think I am. You seem to think I am and I appreciate that.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul
Capital Gains income is taxed twice. Publicly traded companies that pay dividends are taxed typically as C-corporations before paying out to investors who then pay Capital gains.
…..making an average of $271,000,000, paid only 18% of their income. So their “fair share” was $48,780,000 and you want them to pay more to be more fair? Comrad Proud to be Liberal, please pull you head out of the dark place it is in.
Qualified: To answer your pretentious question in a word: yes. They should pay the same rate as they did when your great president Reagan was in office. Do you know what that was? You are beginning to sound like a fascist.
Qualified: A simple search found “Republicans attending a White House meeting on Wednesday didn’t take kindly to President Obama telling them tax rates were higher during the Reagan administration. GOP members engaged in a lot of “eye-rolling,” according to a member who was on hand to hear Obama, who invited House Republicans to the White House for discussions on the debt ceiling. […]
“[The President] made a comment like the tax rate is the lightest, even more than (under former President) Reagan,” Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) told The Hill following the meeting. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) joked that during the meeting, “We learned we had the lowest tax rates in history … lower than Reagan!”
That House Republicans find this preposterous is symptomatic of the hold Reagan mythology has over them. After all, for seven of Reagan’s eight years in office, the top tax rate was higher than the current 35 percent. In six of those years, it was 50 percent or more. And every year that Regan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than the current ten percent.
For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from 7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016. In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years.
Republicans are very fond of saying that the U.S. has “a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” But the truth is that revenue has plunged due to the recession and to continued misguided tax cuts, and revenue needs to be raised to eventually bring the budget into balance. And Reagan knew that taxes were an important part of the budget equation. After all, he “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years.”
Regan isn’t president. We are now borrowing $.43 of every dollar spent. Mr. Obama appears to be trying to shut down businesses with a ton of regulations that we never had back in the ’80s. We now have MOURNING in America.
Why does not Mr. Buffett pay the alleged Billion of back taxes since 2002 that his company owes?
Qualified: We are borrowing 43% of dollars spent because we lack the REVEUE that goes to billionaires/big businesses as enormous, undeserved tax breaks. The government is NOT trying to shut down businesses with regulations but trying to protect us from rapacious businesses that put company profit before human life. Remember the lead in children’s toys that were let into the country because Bush only had ONE person regulation imported toys? Remember the oil spill? You have been watching too much Murdock.
Just like Louisiana, the tea party/GOP deso not want government “interference” unless, of course, there is an emergency. Then they have their tin cup out. What hypocrites!
Liberalism is a mental illness. You are proof of that. What people earn from the work they do each day is theirs. There are things that we all need to pay for that we can not do for ourselves. Roads, Military, and so forth. But when you take what people earn to give to others thats theft. Keep your hands out of my pocket.
Qualified: Spoken like a loyal ditto head. Unless you are among the 0.3% who will be affected by the Buffett rule, you are the billionaires’ lapdog protecting THEIR money (remember 400 families have more wealth than 150,000,000 Americans).
You say: “There are things that we all need to pay for that we can not do for ourselves. Roads, Military, and so forth.” My point is the 0.3% club is not paying their fair share for that and that means you are paying a disproportionate amount. The 0.3% club has their hands in YOUR pocket with undeserved tax breaks you cannot enjoy. Now who’s mentally ill?
I love how you libs think that the wealthy will not react to the raised taxes and just hand over more money. They will find other ways to avoid paying taxes, like not bringing their money back into the stated, and not investing here. I say let the bottom 48 percent who pay nothing contribute. Maybe they will scam less if they have some responsibility to pay into the system.
B: Perhaps those who do not pay taxes do not have the income that qualifies. They would LOVE to be able to pay taxes. All they need is one of those jobs sent to China by the people you love to protect.
I sent an email asking Andy Harris to look into the food supply for diabetics a couple of weeks ago. I am a diabetic who has a sweet tooth and I am having difficulty finding sugar free desserts. I know there are millions of diabetics in this country and it is pathetic there is so little out there for us to eat. Why can’t someone look into expanding the amount of sugar free food for diabetics? (P.S. IF there is something sugar free, it is usually sweetened with Splenda, which tears me up intestinally. There must be another type of sugar substitute that can be used.)
Really Shirley?? I hope this is a joke. l
Shirley you can’t be serious.
A classic.
I do love how this town hall is held at a time when working people can’t attend!
I knew we’d find common ground one day Cdev!
Evntually over time someone finds something they agree with me on.
Cdev: This meeting is not for working people. It is for his constituents who earn their incomes from capital gains.
I hate to inform the Leftists here of a simple fact, but once you retire, MOST of your income will have to come from those evil “capital gains”. Do they think that people on limited fixed incomes is a pool of money just waiting to be tapped and redistributed?
Percent of households owning stocks worth:
Wealth class
$0 (no stocks)
$1-$10,000
More than $10,000
Top 1%
7.4%
4.2%
88.4%
95-99%
7.8%
2.7%
89.5%
90-95%
13.2%
5.4%
81.4%
80-90%
17.9%
10.9%
71.2%
60-80%
34.6%
18.3%
47.1%
40-60%
52.3%
25.6%
22.1%
20-40%
69.7%
21.6%
8.7%
Bottom 20%
84.7%
14.3%
2.0%
TOTAL
50.9%
17.5%
31.6%Table 5b: Amount of stock owned by various wealth classes in the U.S., 2007
Tables’ data from Wolff (2007 & 2010). Includes direct ownership of stock shares and indirect ownership through mutual funds, trusts, and IRAs, Keogh plans, 401(k) plans, and other retirement accounts. All figures are in 2007 dollars.
What this table shows is that the top 1% of households hold 88.4% owning stock by worth.
That hardly will change my retirement.
My point is and has been. Rep Harris is not intrested in input from working people with jobs. He never schedules these forums for a time anyone with a job could actually make. He is unresponsive to his constiuents and this is simply another example of it.
I can’t speak to whether or not he is responsive to his constituents as I have never attempted to contact him or seek his input for any reason. I am a Progressive who attended today’s meeting in Fallston because I wanted to hear what he had to say, and because radical partisanship is not going to help us out of the hole we have dug for ourselves.
The room was full to overflowing and both sides of the political aisle were represented. Some people were less than polite and some long-winded, but everyone there came because they are concerned and involved and hope to make things better. While we continue to disagree on how to do that, at least we can all agree it must be done.
For the most part I’m sitting this one out, but I do want to point out that I am no fan of anyone’s Federal tax burden being high, or raising it higher.
However, while the tax rates are down, and are not consistent across income levels, and while the economy is totally trashed, and our government cannot perform basic functions without borrowing money, I am ALL FOR increasing taxes, and particularly on those who will get by just fine on $200k a year or more.
Does it suck? Yes. Do I say this happily? No.
But times are tough, we have a huge hole, and everyone has got to grab a shovel and start digging.
If we ever get our house in order, we need to come up with a fair and stable way to tax Americans that is clearly better than the current disaster tax code.
If we can come up with that plan now, all the better.
This has been a very well discussed topic with good points being made by all. I am old enough to remember when you could deduct the interest you paid on credit cards and other loans besides home equity and mortgage. Reagan made this happen because he knew what he wanted to spend on defense– with his little forgotten promise to balance the budget at the same time. I have conservative friends that argued that the revenue during Reagan was much higher – the only problem we had was that we spent it. And everyone has a share in that responsibility. Spending is certainly higher, and it became higher when everyone was excited at getting their taxes back instead of having a surplus to pay down the debt. Then when you add to the budget equation the off-budget spending for Afghanistan and Iraq it got substantially worse. Remember when we were going to be greeted as liberators with flowers and it wasn’t going to cost more than $200 billion? The estimates were never openly discussed. We also collectively fell over ourselves about New Orleans and generated legislation to provide them with $60 billion in aid. We collectively believed we could do what we wanted without having to really pay a whole lot for “This Muffler”.
That is to say… those deductions were taken away.
David: As well as medical deductions.
Its not a spending problem, its a revenue problem AND a spending problem. “This is not class warfare – it is math.”
It’s it’s
Both the Republicans and Democrats are wrong. I believe we should use the same strategy as Reagan did in cooperation with congress. Invest(spend wisely) and cut taxes to turn the economy around. Then, after the economy is rolling, cut spending and raise revenues if needed. How do you spark economic activity by raising taxes and/or cutting investment? How about a year of zero payroll tax for both employers and employees? How about eliminating the income tax and use a sales tax after the economy turns around? Everybody would at least be contributing.