Congratulations to the Senate Democrats

[icarus]

Bush Tax Cuts For The 1%

The Senate Democrats overcame a Republican filibuster and ended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. It's now moving on to the Republican controlled house.

I've gone through the GAO accounts myself.

These tax cuts -- largesse unwisely given to the wealthy by President Bush at a time we went to war with Iraq -- coincide with the disappearance of President Clinton's budget surplus.

When those tax cuts kicked in (largely cuts in taxes on capital gains, for example, but also tax breaks for your second, third, or fourth vacation home) suddenly we see deficit spending. Largely because the amount of money coming in dropped.

These cuts are so controversial and slanted in favor of the ultrarich that even Warren Buffet said, "It's time to stop coddling the super rich," noting that he paid less in taxes than his secretary, "And that's not fair."

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Steven King chimed in, "I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar." He points out their (and his own) philanthropy as well, and says that it's not enough.

Now the Democrats have acted, and hit the delete button on Bush's extravagant largesse that has cost our government (literally) so much.

The Republicans, to a man (and woman), voted to keep them.

Comments

[aliceylain]

How how how how HOW can they vote to get rid of the tax cuts that Obama instituted but then turn around and want to keep the tax cuts that Bush instituted. It makes no sense, unless you're voting purely among party lines, which is RIDICULOUS.

[green_grrl]

A friend of mine who has moved in the circles of the very rich told me that in his experience, those who inherited their wealth tended to be Republican and anti-tax. He posited that they don't want to "lose" their money to taxes because they wouldn't know how to replace it.

Those he knew who became rich from ingenuity and work were generally Democrats. They knew how to build wealth--they'd done it before and could do it again. And they knew that a more equitable distribution of money was better for their business. One guy outright told him, "If you gave me the choice of cutting my taxes in half or doubling social spending, I'd vote for the social spending. More money in people's pockets means more customers for my business. I make so much more money off of new customers, it far and away is better for my bottom line than cutting my taxes."

[icarus]

The Republican party votes in lockstep. That's the only explanation.

[icarus]

A friend of mine who has moved in the circles of the very rich told me that in his experience, those who inherited their wealth tended to be Republican and anti-tax. He posited that they don't want to "lose" their money to taxes because they wouldn't know how to replace it.

That is a very interesting observation.