Democrats Seek 4.3% Tax on Richest Households

Real Estate Agent with Overland Park Real Estate (No association with Inc)

Democrats Seek Formula To Blunt AMT
One Plan Would Impose Surtax Of 4.3% on Richest Households

House Democrats looking to spare millions of middle-class families from the expensive bite of the alternative minimum tax are considering adding a surcharge of 4 percent or more to the tax bills of the nation's wealthiest households.

Under one version of the proposal, about 1 million families would be hit with a 4.3 percent surtax on income over $500,000, which would raise enough money to permit Congress to abolish the alternative minimum tax for millions of households earning less than $250,000 a year, according to Democratic aides and others familiar with the plan.

Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the House subcommittee with primary responsibility for the AMT, said that option would also lower AMT bills for families making $250,000 to $500,000. And it would pay for reductions under the regular income tax for married couples, children and the working poor.

All told, the proposal would lower taxes for as many as 90 million households,(story continued Tax on Rich)

Comments (9)

Roger Stensland
Keller Williams Realty Puget Sound - Maple Valley, WA
Let's Move!
What a rip-off.  The only fair tax is a fixed percentage.  No sliding scale or anything like that or even this stick it to the rich attitude.  I'm not rich, but I'm trying to get there.  
Jun 08, 2007 01:49 PM
Eric Bouler
Gardner Realtors, Licensed in La. - New Orleans, LA
Listening to your Needs
Hold your breath if you believe that. Taxes are good for no one as the money seems to get wasted on things we would never buy. The entire tax code needs an overhaul not this nickle and diming of people. The should index it to infaltion if they do things like this. The real question is 4.3% of what, what would they tax? Could this hurt others to loose their jobs?
Jun 08, 2007 01:58 PM
Jennifer Kirby
Kirby Fine Homes - Minneapolis, MN
The Luxury Agent
Socialism is based on the redistribution of wealth. Hate to say it but the "progressive" movement that the Dems love is nothing but pure socialism. This tax is a clear example. They just tried passing something similar in Minnesota. Dems wanted to increase the state tax on the wealthiest up to 9% and then take that money and give it back to middle class property owners in the form of property tax relief. The lowest bracket of "wealthiest" was $250,000! I am sorry, but many people in that bracket are dual income household, are taxed to death, and so when the finally numbers are done, don't' really make that much money. Why don't the Dems just trim the pork fat that is attached to alot of these bills and save us all money. Oh, and I bet the Dems made sure that they are exempt from the tax increase you speak about.
Jun 12, 2007 02:41 PM
Jennifer Mann
All good comments.  I think any change is a good start by opening up dialogue, unless they spend exhorbitant amounts of time on bandaids.  One BIG problem i keep seeing over and over again in the efforts for reform is the cutoff at $250,000.  Middle class these days has extended well above that mark.  I agree the best alternative is a flat tax of some sort similar to a consumption tax, the more you spend the more tax you pay.  One thing is clear, there should be no unfair advantage for anyone.
Sep 13, 2007 08:28 AM
Ann Heitland
Retired from RE/MAX Peak Properties - Flagstaff, AZ
Retired from Flagstaff Real Estate Sales
Remember, when that great socialist Dwight Eisenhower was President, the tax on the wealthest individuals was 90%.  The tax distribution system now is ridiculous and is driving us into a class-stratified society that will ultimately destroy our economy. If we don't take care of our poorest, what kind of society are we? Meanwhile, the middle class disappears and our infrastructure falls apart.
Oct 28, 2007 10:27 AM
Lisa Friedman
Alliance Realtors - Bedminster, NJ
Central New Jersey Real Estate
This just seems so unfair. Why should the rich, who support the economy more than anyone else, be penalized?  Just seems very, very unfair to me.
Mar 30, 2008 04:18 AM
Utah Dave Neighborhood Experts - South Jordan, UT
Homes for Sale - Utah
I can see the unfairness as well...percentages do sound good.  Where much is given...much is required. Is it possible that we do the rich a favor by not allowing them the opportunity to give more? 
Mar 30, 2008 04:27 AM
Mike D
Henderson, NV

I don't know about you, but I don't mind contributing money towards taxes when they are used for things like education, transportation upkeep and development, healthcare, social security and services like that.  What makes me want to keep all of my tax dollars in my own pocket is when it is being used to fund a $10 Billion per month illegal war.  We need to be fiscally responsible, America needs to take in more than it spends so it can invest in America's future.  Call me what you want, but America historically sees its most prosperous times when this is the philosophy we employ.

Sep 06, 2008 05:35 AM
June Stark
Elite Realty-Luxury Homes & Condos On & Off the Strip - Las Vegas, NV
Las Vegas Condos & Luxury Homes Expert

Let's see if Rand Paul can help our country become fiscally responsible again - rather than tax & spend & tax and spend. He was raised by a father who understands economics 101.

Nov 07, 2010 05:50 AM