One reason not to up the old tax rate on the more affluent might be sitting right under our noses. Both the speaker of the house and his second in command are millionaires. I don’t guess they will have much sympathy for the middle class.
According to the Washington Post:
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.) , the GOP leaders who rode to power on the grassroots wave of tea-party activists, are multi-millionaires with financial investments in some of the nation’s largest corporations.
Boehner had minimum financial holdings of $2 million at the end of 2010, while his top deputy was worth at least $3.4 million, according to financial disclosure forms that were released Wednesday. Their true net worth is likely to be far greater because lawmakers are only required to reveal a broad range of their financial holdings and the value of their primary residences is not mandatory in the disclosures. And, as is the case with Cantor’s wife, Diana, spouses are required to reveal the stocks and other assets they hold at the end of the year, not their annual income from the jobs they hold.
The group who fueled the rise of House Republicans — those 87 GOP freshmen elected in last fall’s wave election — have a mixed record in terms of their own finances. At least 19 own assets worth more than $1 million, according to a Washington Post review of 2010 financial disclosure forms. However, after winning election on a platform of reigning in U.S. debt, at least 19 of those freshman listed personal liabilities in excess of $100,000.
The largest investments for Boehner, a former plastics executive from southwestern Ohio, come from mutual funds and a collection of individual retirement accounts. The speaker’s IRA is invested in a who’s who of Fortune 500 companies, ranging from WalMart (at least $15,000); Xerox ($15,000); Pfizer ($15,000); Goldman Sachs ($15,000), according to his forms.
Cantor, 48, is a former lawyer whose wife has become a financial powerhouse in Richmond, Va. Diana Cantor serves on the boards of Domino’s Pizza and Media General, the communications conglomerate that owns, among other media properties, the Richmond Times Dispatch. More than ten percent of the Cantor family holdings — totaling more than $350,000 — came from stock and stock options in those two companies, according to the whip’s disclosure forms.
Nancy Pelosi is also very wealthy. Why would any of these people want to increase their own tax rate? The article failed to mention that Diana Cantor is also the chair of the VRS, Virginia Retirement System.
With this kind of wealth in the People’s House, what should the middle class really expect?
Congressional Financial Disclosures in the Huffington Post.
Why do I get the feeling this will turn into a negative piece about the wealthy? If people earn large incomes legally through their own efforts, then I say more power to them. It’s the American dream, as many wealthy people were immigrants who came to this country with nothing. Now suddenly they are to be scorned instead of being emulated. Why, because our pres demands the spreading of wealth, other people’s wealth? That’s great if you’re one looking for a handout, but if you busted your butt to get ahead, and achieve that wealth, then this idea is nothing more than organized theft. How many people does the average middle class person employ? Zero! Investment into business is the engine that drives our economy, and you have to have money in order to invest, so lighten up on those who are successful for those are the ones who do the major share of investing.
I am not sure I agree with that 0, SA. Baby sitters, nannies and housekeepers pop into my mind.
No one is suggesting punishing anyone but I would think a millionaire could afford to pay a few percent points higher than I can.
So what? I do not begrudge people their success. Instead of trying to punish success, we should simply have a standard, flat tax rate with minimal deductions. This would ensure that everyone pays their share with no way to game the system. If done correctly, it would also reduce the percentage of people who pay no taxes at all (now approaching 50%).
Class warfare? Really?
What I find so infuriating about the liberal approach to government funding is:
1) History has shown time and time again that higher taxes do not stimulate the economy
2) The left has no stomach for cutting spending.
3) The left is very generous with OPM (Other People’s Money).
Can’t see the forest for the trees I’d say. Ok, have it your way, nearly Zero! Why is it that the major jist of a comment always gets side stepped by those trying to magnify the minor details. It’s like arguing whether the national debt is XXX trillion, or XXX+1 trillion. The whole point is it’s in the multiple TRILLIONS!
The one thing I always laugh about when it comes to the arguements on Financial Disclosures is what Alamo said – yeah, they have all those investments, but those investments are drivers. What I never see at the same time is what those folks are paying in terms of Federal Taxes on their gains….just like with the middle class. Of course, most of the middle class has some type of 400-series retirement fund, where the taxes are deferred. Looking down the list of many of the various financial entities held, reads almost like a 401k, 403k, etc etc held by a member of the middle class.
The arguement of “taxing the rich” would work better if the comparison was done to say this is all the holdings, this is what they paid in tax. If that table was published at the same time, then maybe then say are they paying enough in taxes.
Hmmm. “Tax the rich” vs. “Why are companies just sitting on piles of cash and not hiring everyone?” Makes you wonder!
@Slow
That is another topic.
I just don’t think the wealthy deserve a tax break as much as I do. I make much less money than they do. MUCH less.
Why do you all assume that my comments are about job stimulus? Actually I am thinking more of myself. I know that many of these people are far wealthier than I am and in a far better position to be paying x% of their income in taxes.
What baffles me is why so many people on here are protecting the rich at their own expense. If nearly 50% of all Americans pay NO federal taxes, then I feel even more of the squeeze.
I don’t like those folks being protected either.
The wealthy (lets call wealthy $500k in income a year) also can afford to protect their assets more than I can. There is no tax relief at all for those who are drawing on those 401ks everyone is smiling about now.
Moon,
Are we talking a percentage of income, or a total dollar value? Why are 50% paying nothing at all? Why is it some who pay nothing in, actually get back a refund as an “earned income credit”. Where not talking about people getting assistance in the form of services. We are talking about direct payments. When taken together, it sounds an awful lot like this:
“From each according to their ability. To each according to their need”.
@Steve,
I believe I commented that I didn’t like that either. I think every person living in this country should pay something in the form of income tax. I don’t care if it is a dollar a year if the person is poor. I am not sure how the earned income credit works. Don’t all workers pay something in?
Let’s just talk about those 50% who pay something in income tax. The other 50% is another issue.
All workers may pay tax on net income, but then comes time to file the Tax Return, and many by the time they take the various deductions (especially if they itemize), you get a family with total household income of $50,000 and below ending up not having to pay any taxes. As I recall, the ones making less than $50,000 (either single, married, family) make up about 70% of tax filers who had no liability.
A single person may work part-time or full-time, and when filing without deductions, pay about 10% of what the net income is. But toss in those tax cuts for the low to middle income folks signed into law as part of the economic recovery stuff, and no liability.
As for the rich – well, gee, if I was one of those big time folks making over $500,000+ I would find me enough investments in a very, very big diversified portfolio (stocks, tax-exempt bonds, REITs, etc) where the crappy economy is giving me enough losses I can end up not paying anything either.
As for the 50% who are paying something: not really 50% since if you take the ones with no tax liability out of the picture, it is a much smaller number of people paying taxes. Take out of 100% taxed on net income payers : the low to middle income (@70%) plus the $50K to $500K (@15%) plus the “rich” of $500K+ (@2%) and that brings us to @87% of those who had no tax liability….leaving a paultry 13% of taxpayers with no refund probably or paying more than was deducted from payroll.
Being rich is a relative thing. A person with a small two bedroom home is probably considered ‘rich’ to someone who is homeless. A person in a five bedroom home is probably considered ‘rich’ to the person with a two bedroom home, and so on and so forth. Back in the day if a family had more than one car they were considered ‘rich’. Now even most of the ‘poor’ own cars, no insurance maybe, but driving cars nonetheless. The entire nation has become ‘wealthy’ relative to when I was a child, and when compared to other third world countries we all are indeed ‘rich’.
I have no clue what this has to do with taxes, but I just thought I’d throw this out there.
@Second Alamo
I think what it has to do with taxes is that if we’re going to get the shaft up the “Do Not Enter” area of our bodies than I think it should be applied to everyone equally. We shouldn’t discriminate against the poor OR the rich. Everyone gets it at the same depth.
Here is a good place for common ground. I bet we could all agree that the tax code as it stands is a pile of crap.
That is the quote of the day!
Nancy Pelosi’s wealth far exceeds Boehner’s, at around $35 million compared to his measly $2 million.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/16/2011-06-16_house_minority_leader_nancy_pelosis_wealth_grows_62_to_352m_boehner_reids_worth_.html?r=news
But I’m sure they feel our pain.
Alamo, you bring up a good point – all the discussion on taxes or this class or that class is all relative. Once upon a time, the definitions might have worked, but they are out of date in my mind.