- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Group forms in Ohio to push tax increases for rich

Published: Sat, December 1, 2012 @ 12:04 a.m.

By Marc Kovac



A coalition of liberal groups is planning a series of public events across the state, with hopes of persuading Ohio’s Republican congressional delegation to support tax hikes on the country’s wealthiest residents.

The Ohio Action Coalition fears the GOP will block a deal to avoid the looming federal fiscal cliff that would involve tax increases for those who earn more than $250,000 a year.

Instead, the group wants Congress to increase tax rates on the richest 2 percent of residents while extending tax cuts instituted during former President George W. Bush’s term for everyone else.

“Our goal in the campaign is to ensure that tax fairness is a starting point for any deficit-reduction deal struck between Congress and President Obama to avoid the so-called ‘fiscal cliff,’” said Joanne Pickrell, director of the coalition.

The Obama administration and congressional Republicans are negotiating to avoid the fiscal cliff, which refers to the combined spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect in the new year.

Dale Butland, spokesman for the state coalition, said that could mean an estimated “roughly $500 billion” in economic impacts absent federal action.

Supporters of the president say his re-election indicates voters’ support for an approach that includes a combination of spending cuts and a tax increase on the wealthy.

On the campaign trail, Obama made it clear that he would push for higher taxes on the wealthy, while his Republican challenger Mitt Romney campaigned on an opposite approach.

“We are not proposing to soak the rich or to raise taxes even a dime for 98 percent of Americans,” Butland said. “Our plan — and listen to this carefully — is to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone on the first $250,000 a year that they earn and then tax income over that amount at just the Clinton-era levels.”

The latter would mean an increase to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for the top marginal income-tax rate and to 35 percent from 33 percent for the second-highest tax rate, Butland said.

He added, “Our plan is not only reasonable, it’s exactly what the majority of Americans and Ohioans want.”


1dlrwrr1(5 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

You do the math; the GOP has dominated the White House for years with their lies and deceit. Now, payday is here for them to pay the American people back all the monies they have stole in taxes and other dirty under handed laws they have passed to only benefit the rich to mega rich. It is a long and lonely road that has no end, and a ill wind that never changes. It is time to pay this country back and ease this one-sided load that this country has had to carry for too long.

Suggest removal:

2jeep4grog(2 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

When the Dem's were the majority in Congress back when Bush was still in office, they couldn't agree on anything relating to a budget and they were the majority for two years...

Suggest removal:

3lee(544 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

What a great idea, let's tax the evil rich Ah---s until they bleed then they will leave and we will be better off, what have they done except give people a chance to work and make a living, how dare they start business and create wealth.
Look at all the weight we will lose because we no longer are able to find work and unable to buy food for our families. Things will be great when the business men are gone.

Suggest removal:

4ytownsteelman(628 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

When the bottom half of the population pays no income tax at all, how can "tax fairness" mean that the bottom half still pay nothing? Where is the fairness in that? This is nothing but a bunch of greedy parasites whose morals have sunk so low that they see no problem in just taking what they want from others. Hey libs, start paying your fair share for once.

Suggest removal:

5AnotherAverageCitizen(1174 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago


W told me if we lower taxes, it will create jobs.

Suggest removal:

6commoncitizen(961 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

AAC, unemployment WAS lower when W was in office.

Suggest removal:

7ulistenup(95 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago


"So we the majority say pay more."

Beware of the tyranny of majorities!

(1) A majority enslaved blacks in this country,

(2) A majority made abortion legal in this country.

Majorities don't always do the right thing.

Suggest removal:

8stewie(109 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Stop calling them entitlements! I paid in for 40 yrs.! Hey common citizen, hell yeah unemployment was lower! Your buddy Bush sent hundreds of thousands of people to two war zones! You genius!

Suggest removal:

9mcgill319(8 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

You are so right stewie,entitlements are what was given to the super wealthy. When you ask these people living in the "bubble" who want to get rid of S.S.Medicare, if there parents are receiving their due payments, they say, of course,what else would they live on in their retirement? They don't make the connection.

Suggest removal:

10mcgill319(8 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

So, Mr. youngstownsteelman, let's get this straight, ALL of the people who make under $250,000.00 are Parasites,living off of the wealthy, like you, right? Who knew working in a Steel Mill, which Obama helped save, could make someone a Millionaire. Does every Millionaire/Billionaire, create jobs, if that were true, where are all the jobs since Bush gave all his, as he calls them, "My have and Have More's" a tax cut? Open up your mind for the sake of the country.

Suggest removal:

11ytownsteelman(628 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

OK stewie, Social Security and Medicare ARE entitlements! There are two types of programs in the Federal govt., entitlements and discretionary. Entitlements are named such because the recipients are ENTITLED to the payments because they paid into the programs. If you want SS and medicare to NOT be entitlements then they would become discretionary, which means that congress has the DISCRETION each year to zero out that funding if they so choose. So are your really sure that is what you want? I think you are just the typical uninformed American who does not know what you are talking about.

Suggest removal:

12ytownsteelman(628 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Mcgill, so now Obama saved the steel industry too? Damn, he MUST be "our lord and savior" to be able to do all that he is credited with! To repeat what I said earlier, if you are in the bottom 47% who does not pay income taxes, you are by definition, NOT PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE! You are paying NO share but those at the lower end have a much greater likelihood of using government programs. Those at the upper end already pay their fair share and more.

Suggest removal:

13ytownsteelman(628 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

BTW, can anyone please define what a "fair share" of taxes is? I have been asking this question for the past year and nobody has been able to give me a straightforward, quantifiable answer as to what the "fair share" of taxes is for each income level.

Suggest removal:

14rjradmore(1 comment)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

If someone in this area could tell me what "Rich" is.I would appreciate it. The Unoin mentality that still exists in the area is amazing. When will you individuals understand that the "Rich" enable those of us who work to receive a pay check. We pay taxes so most of this area can get SSI,Food Stamps,Disability Payments and on and on.....Also section eight. I work hard, I own my home and I never asked the government for any help. The people around here do not ask for help, they expect it. Pretty sad.

Suggest removal:

15soylentgreen(11 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

I love you people, don't ever stop posting this is better than the Simpsons.

Suggest removal:

16borylie(790 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

ytownsteelman,"fair share" is the taxes needed at the time to feed the beast. For example the democrats/liberals now consider $250,000.00 and higher to be "rich". In three years when the beast needs to be fed again the "rich" may be $175,000.00 and all those above. These people will be asked to pay their "fair share". Then three more years,well I think you can see what I'm getting at here. It's a moving number that until all the workers,investors and job creators pay their "fair share" that there's no motivation to perform and we all become wards of the federal government.
Not to far into the future I can see the ruling class(government),the elite(Streisand,Clooney,JayZ and George Soros) and the common people(us). Now for all of you that post here,ask yourself,geez what class will I be in?

Suggest removal:

17iBuck(220 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Yah, they should call themselves Envious Under-Achievers for Increased Government Extortion, and in a time and place of truth in advertising they would.

Government extortion is UNFAIR. Back when the socialists (it was part of their platform/program going back to the mid-1800s) foisted the federal income extortion on our parents and grand-parents back in 1912, they promised up and down that only those with the very highest incomes would be affected at all, and then they promised that the top rate would never reach 9%.

To enter the first bracket subject to the income extortion scheme, you had to earn 150% of the median, at which point you'd be extorted at the rate of 1%.

At 10 times the median your earnings above that would be extorted at the rate of 2%.

A while back I posted the old form from the Library of Congress (I recall a friend having gotten ahold of a copy of it and posted it around the university bulletin boards and such, so I looked it up), and worked out the brackets as denominated back then and adjusted for inflation since:

"Rich" has always been found in academic surveys of the public to mean "a little more than what I make"; in this, the 3rd month of the 4th quarter of the 13th year of the GHWBush-Clinton-Shrub-Obummer economic depression, it wouldn't require much for me to classify someone as "rich" on that basis.

When the Dems had the majority when Carter was in office, when the Dem's were the majority in Congress back when Bush was still in office, when the Dems and when the Reps had the majority when Clinton was in office, when the Reps were the majority when Reagan was in office, they couldn't agree to cut the excessive federal government spending because there were too many leftists and RINOs and neo-cons and other big-government leftists in Republican clothing, willing, even eager to keep on keeping on as long as they could get away with the con schemes, even long after all of the congress-critters were aware that they were con schemes and the media were aware and the vast majority of the public had become aware that they were con schemes. Politicians of every stripe have been addicted to giving out promises of goodies, regardless of whether the public's productivity could support the promised pay-outs.

Suggest removal:

18slappysmith(55 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

i love reading the comments from the conservative nincompoops on this papers comment section. its hard to believe you can find that many stupid people living in one area. most with no jobs, no health care and no money fighting tooth and nail to protect the people who get richer every day while the rest of us become poorer. brainwashed fools who have convinced themselves they are not in the 47% Mitt Romney was talking about because they vote republican.

Suggest removal:

19mjnovaksr(95 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

As I read this article and many of the comments related to it I begin to understand why this valley has sunk so very low over the past 30 years. During bad economic times the prudent person conserves their resources by cutting spending everywhere that is non-essential in order to survive until times get better. They know that spending more than you earn (note: EARN) is a recipe for failure! Successful businesses do the same if they wish to survive and prosper. Obama wishes to destroy America by spreading our wealth and resources around the world and to divide our country along racial, religious, and economic lines and he has so far been very successful at it. During the past four years the only thing growing in America has been our Federal government. When Obama talks about taxing the rich he really means all of us, but some are too stupid to realize it. Obama doesn't want compromise! He has spent the last 5 years campaigning and continues today! Obama doesn't have to seek compromise because he wants ALL tax rates to rise because he knows he cannot continue spreading your wealth to the world and to his political supporters unless they do. He also knows that he really doesn't need tax increases at all, since Bernanke and the Fed will cover his back by "quantative easing" ie PRINTING MONEY!!! Either way Obama wins! That is why he couldn't care less if a deal is struck or we go off the so-called "fiscal cliff". In truth, we've long ago gone over that cliff and are rapidly approaching the rocky bottom! But guess who loses - we, the taxpayers of this soon to be extinct Constitutional Republic! Obama will continue to play golf every week, take numerous high cost vacations around the world, and four years from now America will be poorer, less able to defend itself, and closer to civil war. He will have succeeded; and we all will have failed! God help the United States of America!

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport