Restore progressive tax; close loopholes; relief to seniors
There has to be a restoration of balance in our tax code. We are going to offset some of the payroll taxes that families who are making less than $50,000 a year get a larger break. I want to make sure that seniors making less than $50,000, that they get
some relief in terms of the taxes on their Social Security. Those kinds of progressive tax steps, while closing loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the top 1 percent, simply restores some fairness and a sense that we're all in this together.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Oct 30, 2007
Reduce Bush tax cuts to pay for health care & other programs
Q: Do you agree that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes?
A: There's no doubt that the tax system has been skewed. And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less,
so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.
But I think this goes to a broader question, and that is, are we willing to make the investments in genuine equal opportunity in this country? People aren't looking for charity.
We talk about welfare and we talk about poverty, but what people really want is fairness. They want people paying their fair share of taxes. They want that money allocated fairly.
One of the distressing things about
Katrina was the fact that we have not made systematic investments. And the only way we're going to make it is by making sure that those of us who are fortunate enough to have the money actually make a contribution.
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University
Jun 28, 2007
Estate tax only affects the wealthiest 1/2 of 1%
We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit
from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.
Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the
debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of
1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.191-192
Oct 1, 2006
Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class
Middle class families are getting squeezed. The new jobs being created in Illinois pay an average of $15,000 less than the jobs that we've lost - and fewer offer real benefits. Health insurance premiums and the cost of a college education have
skyrocketed since the beginning of the Bush Administration. In the past three years, corporate profits have increased more than 60%. Workers are being paid just 3% more.
It wouldn't be fair or accurate to blame all of this on the Bush Administration.
It is fair, however, to say that they haven't done much to help. The tax cuts they've offered have barely made a dent in reducing the burden on middle class families, while driving our nation trillions of dollars deeper into debt.
They continue to support tax breaks for corporations who export jobs overseas, and have refused to enforce provisions within existing trade agreements against countries who engage in unfair trade practices.
Source: Press Release, "Middle Class Being Squeezed"
Jun 26, 2004
Tax incentives to create jobs at home instead of offshore
Obama today said companies creating jobs in America should be rewarded with tax cuts rather than giving tax incentives to companies that move jobs offshore. "Right now, we have a tax code that gives incentives for companies to move offshore.
Instead, we must have a tax code that rewards companies that are doing the right thing by investing in American workers and investing in research and development here in the United States," said Obama. "Our government has to be looking out for
these people who are working hard everyday trying to make ends meet and right now we've got a set of policies that are not reflective of that." Obama's plan to create quality jobs in Illinois will:
Close loopholes that encourage
companies to move jobs abroad.
Reward companies that create quality jobs in America.
Ensure fair trade by enforcing existing trade agreements and strengthening future trade agreements.
Provide needed assistance for displaced workers.
Source: Press Release, "Creating Jobs in America"
Jun 21, 2004
Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Amendment would accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, preventing 23 million families and individuals from being subject to the AMT in 2007, and millions of families and individuals in subsequent years.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This amendment repeals the AMT. Except for the telephone tax, the alternative minimum tax is the phoniest tax we have ever passed. The AMT, in 1969, was meant to hit 155 taxpayers who used legal means to avoid taxation, under the theory that everybody ought to pay some income tax.
This very year, more than 2,000 people who are very wealthy are not paying any income tax or alternative minimum income tax. So it is not even working and hitting the people it is supposed to hit. Right now, this year, 2007, the year we are in, there are 23 million families that are going to be hit by this tax. It is a phony revenue machine, over 5 years, $467 billion dollars.
We are going to have to have a point of order this year to keep these 23 million taxpayers from paying this tax. We might as well do away with it right now, once and for all, and be honest about it.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The reality of the budget resolution is this may not have anything to do with eliminating the alternative minimum tax. The one thing it will do is reduce the revenue of the Government over the next 5 years by $533 billion, plunging us right back into deficit. Look, we can deal with the AMT. We have dealt with it in the underlying budget resolution for the next 2 years. There will be no increase in the number of people affected by the AMT for the next 2 years under the budget resolution, and that is paid for. Unfortunately, this amendment is not paid for. It would plunge us back into deficit. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.
An amendment to raise the death tax exemption to $5 million; reducing the maximum death tax rate to 35%; and to promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
It is disappointing to many family businesses and farm owners to set the death tax rate at what I believe is a confiscatory 45% and set the exemption at only $3.5 million, which most of us believe is too low. This leaves more than 22,000 families subject to the estate tax each year.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
You can extend all the tax breaks that have been described in this amendment if you pay for them.
The problem with the amendment is that over $70 billion is not paid for. It goes on the deficit, which will drive the budget right out of balance. We will be going right back into the deficit ditch. Let us resist this amendment. People could support it if it was paid for, but it is not. However well intended the amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. This amendment blows the budget. This amendment takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit. My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they offset them. This amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be defeated.
Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.
Increases the estate tax exclusion to $5,000,000, effective 2015, and repeals the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes. Lowers the estate tax rate to equal the current long-term capital gains tax rate (i.e., 15% through 2010) for taxable estates up to $25 million. Repeals after 2009 the estate tax deduction paid to states.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
The permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55% and the exclusion dropping to $1 million in 2011. It also includes a minimum wage increase, 40% over the next 3 years. Voting YES is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. Voting YES is for that extension of tax relief. Voting YES is for that 40% minimum wage increase. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American family, farmers, & small business owners.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Family businesses and family farms should not be broken up to pay taxes. With the booming economy of the 1990s, many more Americans joined the ranks of those who could face estate taxes. Raising the exemption level and lowering the rate in past legislation made sense. Under current law, in my State of Delaware, fewer than 50 families will face any estate tax in 2009. I oppose this legislation's complete repeal of the estate tax because it will cost us $750 billion. Given the world we live in today, with clear domestic needs unmet, full repeal is a luxury that we cannot afford.
To add insult to this injury, the first pay raise for minimum wage workers in 10 years is now hostage to this estate tax cut. We are told that to get those folks on minimum wage a raise, we have to go into debt, so that the sons and daughters of the 7,000 most fortunate families among us will be spared the estate tax. We must say no to this transparent gimmick.
Reference: Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act;
Bill H.R. 5970
; vote number 2006-229
on Aug 3, 2006
Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.
A cloture motion ends debate and forces a vote on the issue. In this case, voting YES implies support for permanently repealing the death tax. Voting against cloture would allow further amendments. A cloture motion requires a 3/5th majority to pass. This cloture motion failed, and there was therefore no vote on repealing the death tax.
Proponents of the motion say:
We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.
In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax was repealed. But that changed in the last century.
The death tax was imposed and has never been lifted.
The death tax tells people it is better to consume today than to invest for the future. That doesn't make sense.
Opponents of the motion say:
Small businesses and farms rarely--if ever--are forced to sell off assets or close up shop to pay the tax. Under the current exemption, roughly 99% of estates owe nothing in estate taxes. By 2011, with a $3.5 million exemption, only two of every 100,000 people who die that year would be subject to the estate tax.
Today's vote is on a motion to proceed to a bill to repeal the estate tax. Not to proceed to a compromise or any other deal--but to full repeal. I oppose full repeal of the estate tax. Our Nation can no longer afford this tax break for the very well off. Permanently repealing the estate tax would add about $1 trillion to our national debt from 2011 to 2021.
Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut.
To strengthen America's military, to repeal the extension of tax rates for capital gains and dividends, to reduce the deficit, and for other purposes. Specifically, a YES vote would appropriate $47 billion to the military and would pay for it by repealing the extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends to 2010 back to 2008. The funds wuold be used as follows:
$25.4 billion for procurement
$17 billion for Army operation and maintenance
$4.5 billion for Marine Corps operation and maintenance
Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.
Vote to reduce federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by retaining a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as well as.
Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)
Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 66-31
Reference: Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act;
Bill HR 4297
; vote number 2006-010
on Feb 2, 2006
Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.
This large piece of legislation (418 pages) includes numerous provisions, generally related to extending the tax cuts initiated by President Bush. This vote was on final passage of the bill. The specific provisions include:
Extension Of Expiring Provisions: for business expenses, retirement savings contributions, higher education expenses, new markets tax credit, and deducting state and local sales taxes.
Provisions Relating To Charitable Donations, and Reforming Charitable Organizations
Improved Accountability of Donor Advised Funds
Improvements in Efficiency and Safeguards in IRS Collection
Opponents of the bill recommend voting NAY because:
Health care for children (among many other things) should come before tax cuts for the wealthy.
The 2-year cost of the extensions on capital gains tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is $20 billion. So if we defer the tax break the administration is pushing for the wealthiest people in
America, we would have enough money to provide basic health insurance for every uninsured child in America, and we would eliminate 20% of the uninsured Americans with that single act alone.
Proponents of the bill recommend voting YEA because:
The largest provision in the bill--about $30 billion of tax relief--amounts to half of the net tax package and is designed to keep 14 million people out of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is terrible and should be repealed.
College tuition benefits for families who send their kids to college -- by definition, this benefit goes to middle-income families.
The small savers' credit -- for low-income folks that save through an IRA or pension plan.
Many small businesses use the small business expensing benefit to buy equipment on an efficient after-tax basis. It is good for small business. It is good for economic growth.
Reference: Tax Relief Act of 2005;
Bill S. 2020
; vote number 2005-347
on Nov 18, 2005
Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.
Obama scores 100% by the CTJ on taxationissues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CTJ scores as follows:
Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws.
Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:
Fair taxes for middle and low-income families
Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share
Closing corporate tax loopholes
Adequately funding important government services
Reducing the federal debt
Taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets
