Tea Baggers Who Feel They’re ‘Taxed Enough Already’ Gripe About Inadequate Service In…Public Transit
Tea Baggers Who Feel They’re ‘Taxed Enough Already’ Gripe About Inadequate Service In…Public Transit
Last weekend, tens of thousands of right-wing protesters invaded Washington, DC for the 912 March. Not only were they rallying against President Obama’s plans for health care reform, but more generally against “socialism,” government-run services, and too much taxation.
A large number of the tea party protesters relied on DC’s transit system to get around the city. The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) reported that on Sept. 12, metrorail ridership was double compared to an average Saturday. The Washington metro, of course, is public transit — in other words, it’s run by big government. Nevertheless, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) has written a letter to WMATA complaining that the service wasn’t good enough for the tea baggers:
“These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration,” Brady wrote. “These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public transit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them.”
A spokesman for Brady says that “there weren’t enough cars and there weren’t enough trains.” Brady tweeted as much from the Saturday march. “METRO did not prepare for Tea Party March! More stories. People couldn’t get on, missed start of march. I will demand answers from Metro,” he wrote on Twitter.
In his letter, Brady also complained that overcrowding on the metro trains
“forced an 80-year-old woman and elderly veterans in wheelchairs to pay for cabs” — in other words, to rely on the non-government-run transportation system, which tea party protesters would presumably want to support.
A large part of the reason that the DC metro has had so many problems in recent years is that it doesn’t “have dedicated tax revenue.” It has often run into protests from people such Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who has said that we shouldn’t “steal opportunity from our children so that we can have a ride on the Metro.” The American Public Transportation Association says that “recession-imposed limits on government budgets and increased demand are doubtless among the reasons why ‘transit systems are strained all over the country.’”
Americans around the country are relying on metro more than ever. Last year, they took 10.7 billion trips, the highest level in 52 years. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials reports that “an annual investment of $46 billion is needed to keep up with an expected 2.4 percent annual growth in ridership,” but in 2006, “transit capital from all levels of government amounted to only $13.3 billion.”
As for Brady…John Cole points out that when a bill containing $150 million for emergency maintenance funding for the DC metro system came up this summer, Brady voted against it.
- Comments
- 134
Santorum Ties Himself Into Knots Justifying Congress’ Use Of Reconciliation During The Bush Years
Santorum Ties Himself Into Knots Justifying Congress’ Use Of Reconciliation During The Bush Years
On an RNC conference call today, Politico’s Ben Smith asked former Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum why he believes it would be an “abomination” for Congress to use the budget reconciliation process — which requires 51 instead of 60 votes — to pass health care reform, considering that the Republican Congress also used it to pass bills, such as President Bush’s tax cuts.
Santorum tried to name every way he could think of that might justify his position, including: 1) unlike health care, a tax bill is a “revenue bill” and “affects the budget,” 2) health care is “major policy initiative,” and 3) the reconciliation process will make a “huge and complex” bill even “more complex.”
When Smith pointed out that Republicans used the reconciliation process to push through drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — which is also arguably a major policy initiative that isn’t just a revenue bill — Santorum tried to argue that it wasn’t AS major, so it was acceptable:
SANTORUM: Well, again, you’re talking about a situation where, again, the biggest thing about drilling is certainly it has an impact on a small chunk of land in northern Alaska, and it has an impact on the federal revenue, but it’s not a particularly complex thing. You’re talking about drilling holes, as opposed to rejiggering and rewriting and reconstructing the entire health care system of this country. And the impact on the 350 million Americans for drilling a few holes in Alaska is fairly minor, as far as how it affects their daily lives. As opposed to — and by the way, it’s fairly minor on the economy, certainly in the short term, a little more in the long term. But again, nothing compared to what we’re talking about here with health care.
Listen here:
That’s not what Santorum argued at the time. In 2006, he wrote that Arctic drilling “has the potential to play a significant role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” Cantor also admitted that tax cuts would have more than a “minor” effect on the economy, saying in 2001, “There is nothing better that we can do for long term growth of our economy to lower these oppressive tax rates we have in place right now.” Basically, reconciliation is okay for any bill EXCEPT for Obama’s health care legislation — which is both too big and too small.
Congress has used reconciliation nearly 20 times since 1980 for everything from the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to student aid efforts, to expanding Medicaid eligibility. In 1995, Santorum was the GOP’s point person to push welfare reform through the budget reconciliation process. “This is a bill the president has absolutely no reason not to sign,” argued Santorum. He is also in no place to be lecturing Democrats on the proper use of reconciliation, considering that under Bush, Republicans fired two successive Senate parliamentarians who disagreed with what they were doing.
Transcript: More »
Executives receive one-third of all pay in the U.S.
Executives receive one-third of all pay in the U.S.
According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data, more than one-third of all pay in the U.S. now goes to executives and other highly-paid employees:
Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S., according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data — without counting billions of dollars more in pay that remains off federal radar screens that measure wages and salaries. Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total U.S. pay in 2007, the latest figures available. The compensation numbers don’t include incentive stock options, unexercised stock options, unvested restricted stock units and certain benefits.
Between 1979 and 2006, the inflation-adjusted after-tax income of the richest 1 percent of households increased by 256 percent, compared to 21 percent for families in the middle income quintile. Despite these numbers, Democratic leaders, “bowing to unease among lawmakers and governors in their own party,” are reconsidering the House Ways and Means committee’s proposal to implement a surtax on the richest one percent of Americans as a way of financing a portion of health care reform. The Wonk Room has more.
Steele’s Fuzzy Math: Obama Administration Created $10 Trillion National Deficit
Steele’s Fuzzy Math: Obama Administration Created $10 Trillion National Deficit
Earlier today on Fox News, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was asked whether Republicans would borrow from President Clinton’s famous catch-phrase during the 1992 campaign, “it’s the economy stupid,” in the run-up to the 2010 election. Steele proceeded to launch into a rambling answer that used fuzzy math to assert that, in only six months, President Obama has added “10 trillion dollars” to the national deficit, while President Bush is to blame for only “a trillion”:
STEELE: They love going back to George Bush and his deficit that was inherited. Great. I’ll take George Bush’s deficit right now of a trillion dollars over the 10 trillion dollars that this administration has created in just six months.
Watch it:
Steele is clearly confusing the difference between our national debt, which stands at roughly $11.4 trillion, and this year’s budget deficit, which just exceeded $1 trillion.
To help jog Steele’s memory, here’s a bit of a deficit recap: Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion in 2001. Budget experts projected a $710 billion surplus for 2009 when he came into office. But the deficit soon exploded, thanks largely to the Bush tax cuts — which accounted for 42 percent of the deficit. When Bush left office, he handed President Obama a projected $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year, the largest ever.
As for the debt, when President Bush took office, it was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion.
Just last month, the New York Times published the results of an examination from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The report, which examined federal spending stretching back almost a decade, found that Obama “is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits”:
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
Try as Steele might, this is blame shifting that just won’t work — especially after the Bush administration made it clear that “deficits don’t matter.”
Blue Dogs threatening to quash health bill over surtax voted for Bush tax cuts.
Blue Dogs threatening to quash health bill over surtax voted for Bush tax cuts.
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — along with six other members of the Blue Dog coalition on the House Energy and Commerce Committee — are threatening to vote down the House’s health care legislation in committee. Ross reportedly objects to the surtax included in the bill, saying “I don’t like the idea of raising taxes in the worst economic crisis since World War II.” However, the Blue Dogs concerned about the surtax voted for some of the budget busting Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that constituted a huge gift to the very wealthiest Americans. Of the seven Blue Dogs on from Energy and Commerce who are complaining, four were around to vote on Bush’s tax cuts. Here’s how they voted:
| Member | 2001 | 2003 |
| Rep. Mike Ross (AR) | Yes | No |
| Rep. Bart Gordon (TN) | Yes | No |
| Rep. Jim Matheson (UT) | Yes | Yes |
| Rep. Baron Hill (IN) | No | No |
Over the ten year window from 2001-2010, the Bush tax cuts gave the richest one percent of Americans about $715 billion in tax breaks. This comes out to about $518,000 per household over ten years or about $51,800 per year. The proposed surtax, meanwhile, would raise $544 billion from households making more than $350,000 per year. The Wonk Room has more.
Grassley endorses caller’s pledge to forgo paying taxes if abortions are federally-funded.
Grassley endorses caller’s pledge to forgo paying taxes if abortions are federally-funded.
On C-Span’s Washington Journal this morning with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a caller referenced a question Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) posed to Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her Supreme Court nomination hearings yesterday in which Graham asked about taxpayer-funded abortions. “If the tax dollars do start going to fund abortions I am at this point going to refuse to pay my taxes,” the caller said, adding, “I would rather go to jail than have people take my tax dollars and kill innocent human beings.” “First of all,” Grassley replied, “I agree with you on your opinion.” Watch it:
Grassley has been the conservative leader in trying to take away abortion services from women who enter into a new national health care Exchange (which would be established if health reform passes). If Grassley prevails in this fight, “millions of women who have access to abortion services (through their employer) would suddenly lose it, should they chose to enroll in a new health care plan in the Exchange.”
Transcript: More »
Business lobby and some Democrats voice opposition to Obama’s crackdown on offshore tax havens.
Business lobby and some Democrats voice opposition to Obama’s crackdown on offshore tax havens.
Yesterday, the Obama administration announced “a major offensive against businesses and wealthy individuals who avoid U.S. taxes by parking cash overseas.” Predictably, the business lobby immediately cried foul over the changes, claiming that they will destroy businesses and “eliminate American jobs.” But Congressional roadblocks have also emerged:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, called for “further study” of Obama’s proposals within minutes of the president’s announcement yesterday. Representative Joseph Crowley, a Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he’s wary because the tax changes would hurt Citigroup Inc., his New York district’s largest private-sector employer.
The Wonk Room provides some facts to help inform “wary” Democrats.
Lincoln’s $250 billion estate tax plan would cut taxes for only 60 ’small businesses.’
Lincoln’s $250 billion estate tax plan would cut taxes for only 60 ’small businesses.’
Last week, 10 Democrats in the Senate joined all 41 Republicans in voting for a $250 billion proposal to cut estate taxes, designed by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). More than 99 percent of this cost would go to the inheritors of estates worth over $7 million. Touting the tax cut in a press release, Lincoln claimed that it was “aimed at farms and small businesses.” However, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Lincoln’s $250 billion proposal would save just 60 small businesses or farms from the estate tax:
An always charged issue is how the estate tax affects small farms and family-owned businesses. We estimate that under the Obama proposal, 100 family farms and businesses would owe tax…The Lincoln-Kyl proposal would cut the number to 40.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, “almost all such estates are able to pay the tax bill without having to sell business assets.”
In midst of recession, Sens. Kyl and Lincoln think ‘the most pressing issue’ is ‘America’s wealthiest families.’
In midst of recession, Sens. Kyl and Lincoln think ‘the most pressing issue’ is ‘America’s wealthiest families.’
Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) have offered a $250 billion proposal to cut estate taxes for the children of multi-millionaires. The proposal is attracting a disturbing amount of support. In an editorial this morning, The New York Times writes that, while the nation is focused on ending the deep recession, Kyl and Lincoln’s “most pressing issue is clear: America’s wealthiest families need help. Now.” The Wonk Room’s Ben Furnas noted yesterday:
While opponents of the estate tax claim rolling it back protects small farms and businesses, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out that “only 0.2 percent of the additional cost of the proposal, relative to [the Obama proposal], would go toward tax cuts for small businesses and farms.”
The rest of the cost, approximately $249.5 billion, would go to the inheritors of estates worth over $7 million. Paris Hilton, get excited.
The Waltons — the Arkansas-based family that founded Wal-Mart — are one of the key groups financing the campaign to repeal the estate tax. “With all the serious work before Congress, it is a colossal waste of time to have to rebut the false claims and warped premises of ardent estate-tax cutters,” the NYT writes. “Ms. Lincoln’s and Mr. Kyl’s colleagues in the Senate should make short work of it and move on to urgent matters.”
Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Bizarro World: ‘Every Major Tax Cut In History Has Created More Revenue’
Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Bizarro World: ‘Every Major Tax Cut In History Has Created More Revenue’
In the budget released today, the Obama administration announced that it would end the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, as well as shut off loopholes that effectively eviscerate corporate tax revenues, all in an effort to fuel a robust domestic agenda and start lowering the deficit.
Predictably, the right wing is up in arms over the small tax increase for the richest businesses and families. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) complained to a friendly crowd at CNBC this morning that Obama’s tax increases would harm the economy, and insisted the best way to raise revenue is to cut taxes:
HUTCHISON: I think we get revenue the way we’ve done it in the past that has been so successful in the past and that is tax cuts…Every major tax cut we’ve had in history has created more revenue.
Watch it:
The notion that cutting taxes somehow — magically — increases government revenues is a myth that won’t die. “The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves…is contradicted by the historical record,” reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. FactCheck.org called a claim like Hutchison’s “highly misleading” and stated the obvious fact that “we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers.”
“[E]verything you’ve heard about how revenues have boomed since the Bush tax cuts is wrong,” economist Paul Krugman wrote, noting that government revenues climbed steadily through the Clinton administration, then plunged dramatically following the 2001 Bush tax cuts. And falling revenues during tax-cutting Republican administrations means growing debt:
Hutchison must be looking at a different “history” than everybody else.
Democratic senators come out against Obama’s tax cuts for corporations.
Democratic senators come out against Obama’s tax cuts for corporations.
In a closed-door meeting of the Senate Finance Committee today, Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Kent Conrad, and Ron Wyden expressed their skepticism of Barack Obama’s $3,000 tax credit proposal for companies that hire or retrain workers, arguing that it wouldn’t do much to create jobs. The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo has the details.
Flashback: In 2000, McCain said there is ‘nothing wrong’ with the wealthy paying ’somewhat more’ taxes.
Flashback: In 2000, McCain said there is ‘nothing wrong’ with the wealthy paying ’somewhat more’ taxes.
At an October 2000 town hall on MSNBC’s Hardball, an audience member asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about why the rich pay higher taxes than the middle class. McCain defended progressive taxation, stating, “I think it’s to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more”:
[T]he very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. [...]
So, look, here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. … And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they’re the ones that I would support tax cuts for first.
Watch it:
McCain’s tax plan delivers almost half its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, and gives the top 0.1 percent a $1 million tax cut. “Oh, yes, sure, the wealthy, the wealthy. Always be interested in when people talk about who the, quote, ‘wealthy’ are in America,” mocked McCain in February when asked about his pro-rich tax plan.
Will conservatives criticize Chambliss’ fair tax proposal?
Will conservatives criticize Chambliss’ fair tax proposal?
Last week, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) reiterated his support for the fair tax, which he claimed lets consumers determine their tax rate based on their consumption levels. “The fair tax is what is says it is — it’s fair,” Chambliss said. But as Matt Yglesias notes, when former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee proposed a fair tax during the GOP primary, conservatives lashed out:
– David Frum: “Economists and tax experts virtually unanimously agree that the plan is beyond unworkable — that it is downright absurd.”
– Ross Douthat: “Huckabee’s Fair Tax zeal and Paul’s anti-Fed enthusiasm are genuinely foolish.”
– Rich Lowry: No, the former Arkansas governor has the distinction of advocating the most radical — and politically unsalable and substantively daft — proposal of any major presidential candidate of either party. … [T]he FairTax is a bedtime story for IRS-hating conservatives.
– John Podhoretz: The Fair tax is a “wild notion.”
“I look forward to the aforementioned conservative thought-leaders weighing in on Chambliss’ endorsement of fantasyland policymaking,” Yglesias writes.
McCains would have received $55,000 a year from his capital gains tax cut proposal.
McCains would have received $55,000 a year from his capital gains tax cut proposal.
Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed temporarily cutting the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. On Friday, the McCain campaign released Cindy McCain’s 2007 tax returns, which show that the McCains made $746,395 in capitals gains last year. A new analysis by Michael Ettlinger, Vice President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reveals that McCain’s capital gains cut would have reduced the McCains’ taxes by $55,980 in 2007. This is on top of the more than $350,000 that the McCains would have saved due to the Senator’s other tax proposals. The Wonk Room has more.
‘Joe The Plumber’ Comes Clean: ‘I Would Be Receiving Obama’s Tax Cuts’
‘Joe The Plumber’ Comes Clean: ‘I Would Be Receiving Obama’s Tax Cuts’
As ThinkProgress and many others noted yesterday, the premise of Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s complaints about Barack Obama’s tax plan was ill-informed. Contrary to Wurzelbacher’s claims, “neither his personal taxes nor those of the business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama’s tax plan were to go into effect.”
As CBS News reported, even “Joe The Plumber” acknowledges this fact now:
So today, Joe, who said he makes much less than $250,000, reluctantly admitted Obama would lower his taxes.
“I would, if you believe him, I would be receiving his tax cuts,” Wurzelbacher said.
Watch it:
Bloomberg reports that “one other problem in making Wurzelbacher a symbol of the overtaxed” is that — even if he did earn an adjusted gross income of $280,000 — “he would pay just $773 more in taxes under Obama’s plan than McCain’s.” That amount would hardly deal a crippling blow to his potential small business.
Last night, Sarah Palin said she didn’t want to talk about Wurzelbacher. “I begged our speechwriters, ‘Don’t make me say Joe the Plumber, please, in any speeches,” she said. After failing to properly vet Wurzelbacher’s situation, the McCain campaign is apparently now throwing him overboard and moving on.
The campaign is holding a conference call today with Russ Duker, an individual the McCain camp is calling “a Missouri ‘Joe the Plumber.’”
Two-Thirds Of The Benefits From McCain’s New Tax Cut Go To Millionaires
Two-Thirds Of The Benefits From McCain’s New Tax Cut Go To Millionaires
As part of his new economic outline – The Pension and Family Security Plan – Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has proposed cutting the tax rate on long term capital gains and dividends to 7.5 percent in 2009 and 2010. The current tax rate for these capital gains is 15 percent.
Today, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) released an analysis showing who would benefit from this cut. Like the rest of McCain’s tax cuts, this one overwhelmingly aids the wealthy, with two-thirds of the benefit going to those making over $1 million:
In 2009, under a plan that lowers taxes on both gains and dividends, those making $1 million or more would get two-thirds of the benefit, and an average tax cut of more than $72,000. Those making less than $50,000 would get, on average, nothing.
As the TPC pointed out, “75% of the benefit of low taxes on capital gains and dividends already go to those making $600,000 or more. Half goes to those making $2.8 million or more.”
In fact, as the Wonk Room noted when McCain first toyed with including this provision in his economic plan, under the current 15 percent rate, 93.9 percent of the benefits go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, and 84.8 percent to the top 1 percent. The other 80 percent of taxpayers see only 1.7 percent of the benefits of today’s rate.
The McCain campaign claims that the cut will “strengthen incentives to save, invest, and restore the liquidity of markets.” But given the current economic situation – one in which “people do not have an awful lot of capital gains” – this measure will do nothing to stimulate the economy.
Furthermore, The Street noted that McCain’s cut “might have unintended consequences,” like encouraging investors “to make one-time sales to capture lower capital gains and increased tax write-offs,” which “would facilitate capital flight.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
McCain’s new economic proposal would cause ‘exodus of capital’ to the wealthiest Americans.
McCain’s new economic proposal would cause ‘exodus of capital’ to the wealthiest Americans.
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) gave a speech in Pennsylvania outlining his new economic proposal. Included in the plan is a provision temporarily lowering taxes on withdrawals from IRA’s and 401(k)s. During the speech, McCain touted this new provision, while saying that “it is essential we avoid an exodus of capital from the market.” Watch it:
But McCain doesn’t seem to understand that his proposal actively encourages the “exodus of capital” he is warning against. The Wonk Room explains here.
McCain spokesperson is stumped when asked how much his new economic proposals will cost.
McCain spokesperson is stumped when asked how much his new economic proposals will cost.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) announced a new economic stimulus plan this morning that features a new round of tax cuts for millionaires. McCain campaign spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer was stumped this morning when asked how much those new tax cuts would cost and how McCain planned to pay for them. “Obviously…it’s going to cost some amount of money,” she said. Watch it:
The AP reports McCain’s plan would cost $52.5 billion.
McCain Unveils New Economic Stimulus Proposal: Tax Cut For Millionaires
McCain Unveils New Economic Stimulus Proposal: Tax Cut For Millionaires
On Saturday night, the McCain campaign told Politico.com that it was planning to unveil “new economic plans” that included temporary tax cuts on capital gains. Politico incorrectly noted that this proposal, which benefits the wealthy, would be “aimed directly at the middle class.”
On Sunday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham said McCain was planning “a very comprehensive approach to jump-start the economy, by allowing capital to be formed easier in America by lowering taxes.”
But by Sunday night, the McCain campaign – in a sign of “internal confusion” — was telling the New York Times that they “would not have any more proposals this week.”
On Monday, Barack Obama announced “a new economic rescue plan Monday geared toward middle-class voters.” McCain didn’t announce anything, which “caused some head scratching.”
And now, on Tuesday, McCain is unveiling his new proposals, going back to the well of tax cuts for the rich. McCain will announce plans to “cut the capital gains tax on stock profits in half, from 15 percent now on stocks held a year or longer to 7.5 percent — a $10 billion proposal.” The Wonk Room’s James Kvaal noted the impact of cutting capital gains:
Households earning less than $50,000 a year collected a mere 2.5 percent of capital gains in 2005, according to the Tax Policy Center. Families earning more than $1 million a year collected 59 percent of capital gains. Moreover, most middle-class families with capital gains hold their investments in retirement accounts shielded against capital gains taxes.
For a candidate already promising $175 billion tax cut for corporations, including $4 billion for oil companies, handing out a new tax cut for millionaires and calling it a “Pension And Family Security” plan is oddly appropriate.
Politico removes its claim that McCain’s tax cuts are ‘aimed directly at the middle class.’ (Updated)
Politico removes its claim that McCain’s tax cuts are ‘aimed directly at the middle class.’ (Updated)
Earlier today, ThinkProgress criticized Politico.com for publishing a story that claimed John McCain’s proposed tax cuts for capital gains and dividends would be “aimed directly at the middle class.” Here was their original story’s lead:
Tonight, Politico published a new story on McCain’s tax cuts that removed the false claim. Instead, the article states that the tax cuts are “designed to lure investors back to the stock market.” Here’s their new story’s lead:
Note: The original story containing the false claim is still up on the Politico site.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll