Senate Democrats propose a 5% tax on people earning more than $1M a year to help fund the cost...


Senate Democrats propose a 5% tax on people earning more than $1M a year to help fund the cost of President Obama's jobs bill. Sen. Schumer explains the surtax would include dividends and capital gains, and would stay in place for 10 years.

Comments (10)
  • bukdow
    , contributor
    Comments (859) | Send Message
     
    Good. Move the burden up from $250k to $1 million.
    5 Oct 2011, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
     
    Peanuts. Could raise more money by abolishing the Dept. of (non)Energy.
    5 Oct 2011, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2229) | Send Message
     
    If passed, which I doubt, this will create total market havoc through year end assuming it goes live in 2012. Every individual holding an instrument with capital gains will seek to sell prior to enactment, driving prices further downward. This will not have the desired effect that the Administration is seeking unless that effect is to have the Republicans defeat it.
    5 Oct 2011, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9105) | Send Message
     
    Right on, but do you think the idiots in congress will think through the unintended consequences?
    And why the people of New York, whose tax base is wholly dependent on Wall Street income taxes, continue to elect Schumer is a mystery.
    5 Oct 2011, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    I was not aware that Obama knew how to create jobs. Will all these people be direct reports into Obama or is he going to layer them?

     

    Until WDC starts to work with the business sector nothing is going to happen. Obama is such an amateur even Dems will admit it off the record. Experience does count for something after all.
    5 Oct 2011, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • Perkins Cove
    , contributor
    Comments (638) | Send Message
     
    First, read "Confidence Men" by Ron Suskind. Then you will have a true understanding of what, "We the people" are truely up against.

     

    Second, simplify the tax code so that an individuals return could truely be sent on a postcard. (the 1099 for us traders has just been improved for us gamblers in the stock market...wink)

     

    Third, Warren is right. He should pay at least as much as his secretary in terms of percentage. To be able to do otherwise is unfair. Kudos Warren for saying so. (You CEOs on Wall Street should be paying attention...and following thru...)

     

    Ok, I get the capital gains income being ta......no....I can't do it. Let's really be fair. ALL income taxed the same. Would that not lower the real tax rate for all individuals? Would the man in the street rail against paying a fair percentage? I think not. After all, the man in the street has NO income. Think about that.

     

    The fairness of "We the People" begins with taxation. And "We the People" are being screwed!

     

    Ben, (THE Ben...) add that premise to not printing more money....and we just might have a chance for our kids to have a better life.

     

    "You always have a choice".... eric butterworth

     

    Perkins
    5 Oct 2011, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2229) | Send Message
     
    You are articulate so I am going to assume that you know under the current "income tax" laws 47% of all Americans pay zero "income tax.' I add the brackets to indicate that these American do pay other forms of taxes. That means that 54% of all Americans pay 100% of all of the "personal income taxes" collected. The average rate of "income taxes" collected from the American public is about 18%. Which if my math is correct, means that the "average income tax paying American" pays about 35% in income taxes. I don't know what WB's rate is but he is clearly taking advantage of the loopholes available to him.
    5 Oct 2011, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9105) | Send Message
     
    Perkins, to qualify for a "capital gain" one must take risk. If the investment is lousy and generates a loss, the IRS limits how much one can offset against gains. To tax only the gains and ignore the losses in unjust.
    So, if one taxes "all income" the same what about the losses? Remember, when one goes to work, there is no risk involved in producing "income".
    5 Oct 2011, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Taxation is just another transfer of wealth mechanism. If WB really believed in what he was saying he would have paid his people a whole lot more so he could rationalize the higher rate and/or given them a lot of stock so they would be paying at his level. However he chose not to do that and then sheltered almost all of his wealth in a charity. Only after taking all these steps does he spout off in public how everyone should be paying more including himself but knowing that only a small fraction of his wealth is exposed. Hypocrite.

     

    Since his estate was around $40 Billion I say we claw back $20 Billion to the Treasury and see how enthused he is after that move.
    6 Oct 2011, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • Perkins Cove
    , contributor
    Comments (638) | Send Message
     
    7footmoose...you from Maine...? ( I like the "left hand, right brain thinker thing")

     

    WB has said he pays 17% (federal) And his secretary, and the other 19 people in his office pay 35%. ( thats the federal max) So it appears to me that Warren's income is mostly the sale of stock he has held more than a year. Lucky him.

     

    wyostocks...yeah, I know about the risk part. And I get to deduct $3000. each year against my losses until my gains are bigger than my losses. So the losses are not excused, just deferred. After that, my tax rate will rise to the max of 35%. And life will be good. I far prefer the risk of working in the comfort of my home than in a cubicle. And I understand it is a risk others may not wish to take. If I will eventually have to pay 35% to Uncle Sam, why not Warran. And he seems willing to do it. Now, others may not. That's why a simplified tax code would go a long way in allowing those protesting on Wall Street to feel they are being treated as equals. And it would only "cost" a few sheets of paper and a little ink to make it happen. Oh, and some guts and common sense. (wink)

     

    Thanks for the replies guys. You have been most helpful.

     

    Perkins
    P.S. Just so you know I have a dog in the hunt...up 5% today on TNA.
    It really gets to me when people write articles...and then say they have no positions. What...they don't believe in what they write...?
    5 Oct 2011, 07:18 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs