Posted on 03/03/2009 11:51:41 AM PST by Graybeard58
HARTFORD -- Activist Michael Wintergreen doubts rich people in Connecticut will object to paying more income taxes.
The self-described veteran of "Corporate America" urged state lawmakers on Monday to raise taxes on incomes greater than than $200,000 a year.
"From my own personal experience, a lot of upper income folks will be OK with higher tax rates," said Wintergreen, a representative of Connecticut Working Families, a union-backed political group.
However, a recent statewide poll suggests that people of all income brackets are mostly opposed to state tax increases.
The legislature's Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee heard testimony Monday on legislation that would raise the income and estate taxes.
The income tax provisions target single filers making more than $132,500 a year, heads of households making more than $200,000 a year and married couples making more than $250,000 a year.
The legislation also proposes a surcharge on the estate tax for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 tax years.
The state is facing projected deficits of between $6 billion and $8.6 billion for the upcoming 2010 and 2011 fiscal years.
The legislature's Democratic majority is exploring tax increases to help close the massive budget gaps and finance state government.
Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed a two-year, $38.4 billion budget that didn't raise any taxes. Republican leaders say taxes should only be entertained if spending cuts can't close the budget gaps.
Should lawmakers raise income tax rates for single filers who earn above $132,500 a year? Share your comments below.
*
Tax the Dems. Ok with me. They like it.
But I don’t understand why they don’t just voluntarily write a check to the treasury.
It would save time instead of passing laws.
Most people are just fine with tax raises for the income group just above them on the scale.
Well then, from your own personal bank account, PAY UP.
What'd this moron do...go ask minimum wage earners if they'd object to raising taxes on those making over $200K?
I wonder if any of them objected...
Reminds me of my uncle who worked for the government all his life in a very high position. He was complaining to me that since prop 13 in California, he just wasn't paying enough property taxes. And his kids were suffering by paying more than he was. I suggested that he send more money to the state. I told him I was sure they would be glad to accept it. He shut his mouth then.
I hate chicken and think each one should be taxed at about $10 per. That would also enable them to take the tax off chocolate entirely!
How many rich people will simply move away to escape these taxes?
Since when did $250,000 become “rich.”? Thirty years ago, Harper’s or The Atlantic had an article about WHo is rich, and the author settled on $100,000 a year as a rough benchmark, In today’s money that is about $400,000.
Wouldn’t it be great if tax policy were exclusively at the state level,
and people could “vote with their feet” and use the box of liberty labeled “moving”.
Dems, demonstrably, do everything they can to avoid paying taxes out of their own pockets.
Not for 25 years in Connecticut.
They’ll even cheat.
(Then get nominated for the President’s cabinet.)
Dems don’t bother paying their taxes, that’s why they don’t have a problem with them.
Personally, I'm selling my stock, I don't care how much I've lost, I'll not pay that Chicago CROOK a dime of capital gains!
someone should introduce a bill to raise taxes on Democrats and Liberal advocacy groups and unions
” Activist Michael Wintergreen doubts rich people in Connecticut will object to paying more income taxes.”
....what this clown doesn’t get is that the rich won’t pay....they figure they’re doing enough already....Mayor Bloomberg in New York said the top 1% of pay 50% of the city taxes and he can’t afford to lose even one of them....if this class warfare keeps up we’ll become Italy where tax evasion is a way of life.
Actually the income based definition of being “rich” is itself absurd. Net worth defines whether or not one is rich, not income. I know many folks who earn over 150k, but are deeply in debt. If they lost their job tomorrow, they would be on the street— that is not rich. OTH, the folks down the street who inherited a 500 acre estate and millions from their parents have no visible “income” other than a small annuity— that is rich.
like a Theresa Heinz Kerry?
Where does Pelosi fall under this definition?
22 dems in the house think an annual income of 75k in CT makes your wealthy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.