$320 billion over 10 years Provides tax break for two-income couples Higher income tax credit I imagine this is going to put Republicans between tax-cuts for businesses (job creation) and tax-cuts for the extremely wealthy (job creator wealth redistribution). This is an interesting political stance by Obama. My take on this: I'm not rich, I'm not going to be rich, and no one is going to pass on their massive wealth to me as an heir - so what do I care? I imagine this will be echoed by the majority of voters.
Sounds like every single thing the Republicans have engaged in since Obama took office. Despite your mistaken opinion, Obama has worked overtime to try and find common ground with Republicans only to be rebuffed quite literally since day one. Your biased partisanship is evident.
As far as the proposal, it is a good start, but I would prefer the increased revenues go to deficit reduction first, tax cuts only after the fiscal house is in order and the debt/GDP ratio comes down substantially.
What a lie. Seriously how can you say that with a straight face. Obama has been a lazy incompetent dunce. The people have spoken with their votes back in November and the dems got routed.
You're the only liar in this conversation. Your choice to ignore all of Obama's attempts to work with Republicans just makes you ignorant and doesn't change the facts a whit. The voters spoke in 2008 and 2012 and Obama was found dramatically more deserving of votes than the Republicans who ran against him. I suspect a similar result in 2016.
Bingo. While I disagree about your "crappy pubbie policy", you're correct in Obama's motivations. This is all Obama is trying to do, he knows his idea is DOA. Gladiato doesn't understand this second level-logic, but you clearly do.
This is what's needed. A crash caused largely by the financial machinations of a few cannot benefit that same few. Moral hazard has been created on an unprecedented level. This is only the beginning of what has to happen to achieve true reform.
More like the 0.7%. Amother masterful move. This has no chance of passing but put the GOPsters on defense, as they now have to defend low taxes for the very rich as the way to addreas income inequality and low wage growth. Good luck with that guys.
---We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it…. What we're trying to move against is institutionalized unfairness. We want to see that everyone pays their fair share, and no one gets a free ride. Our reasons? It's good for society when we all know that no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they're rich and powerful. Ronald Reagan...
Hmm. I think you've got all your branches of government mixed up in regards to who passes legislation and does vetoes and such.
As a moderate conservative, I think we should tax all income of more than $10M at a 50% tax rate and income of more than $25M at a 75% tax rate. Any U.S. citizen who derives more than $5M of their income from outside the United States should be taxed at a 60% rate. This would, of course, include actors and other movie personnel as well as U.S. corporations with headquarters outside the United States. Corporations with headquarters inside the U.S. and who do not keep more than 10% of their non-fixed assets offshore would be exempt from the the 60% rate.
How ironic considering it was the 86 tax overhaul that started us towards the inequality where we are today. Of course Reagan also believed that cutting taxes would somehow incentivize the "job creators" to you know create a few jobs? 1% is nothing let's go back to the pre 1986 brackets.