An Open Letter To Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen Urging Him To Save Middle Class Tax Cuts
Last week, the U.S. Senate passed a Democrat-sponsored bill (S 3412), by a vote of 51-48, extending the Bush-era tax cuts to the middle class. The Senate Republican version, which lost by a vote of 45-54, would have given tax breaks of approximately $160,000 per year to the average American millionaire and added $155 billion to the U.S. deficit.
This week the House of Representative has its turn. The House vote could take place as early as tomorrow. Will the House pass the Senate measure that preserves vital assistance for middle- and working-class Americans or will they hold the majority of us hostage by passing a bill to extend massive tax cuts to the mega wealthy?
I am running for Congress in N.J.’s new, competitive 11th District. If I were your Congressional representative, I can promise you that I would be voting in favor of the bill that the Senate passed last week. Why? Because I’m a Certified Public Account and a numbers man. When you look at the numbers it’s obvious that the Senate bill gives millions of Americans a fair shot at economic stability.
But I can’t vote next week because I’m not in Congress — at least not yet.
Instead, we must rely on my Republican opponent, Rodney Frelinghuysen, to do the right thing. I hear Rep. Frelinghuysen is a good man and I have not doubt that he is. On this issue, however, the proof will be in the voting.
If the House passes the Senate version, President Barack Obama has promised to sign the bill into law that will benefit 98% of Americans and nearly every small business.
If the House passes the Republican version, the bill will stall as the Senate and the House attempt to reconcile the differences between the bills — something easier said than done in the contentious atmosphere that pervades the halls of Congress these days.
So what’s it going to be Mr. Frelinghuysen? Are you going to vote in favor of extending tax cuts to the 98% of us who make up this great country or are you going to vote to preserve the interests of the mega wealthy?
I encourage each of you to ask Congressman Frelinghuysen to do the right thing. Tell Mr. Frelinghuysen to vote in favor of the Democratic-sponsored bill that passed the Senate last week and to vote against a Republican House bill that will extend those cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
The congressman’s office can be reached at (973) 984-0711.
Barry
11:26 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
It is important that Mr. Frelinghuysen strongly consider breaking ties with his party and vote for the Senate Tax Bill. This will keep in place vital Earned Income Tax credits for the working poor while ensuring all incomes below $200k, 250k for couples filing jointly, maintain tax relief. The Republican plan rips the Earned Income Tax Credits from the working poor while lining the pockets of the richest Americans with an additional $160k. I, too, believe that Mr. Frelinghuysen is a good man, but fear he will follow the will of his fellow House Republicans and come down once again, for those least needy of help in these difficult times. Let's hope, he sees the light and votes for the Senate Bill.
BG
Caldwellres
12:04 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Barry,
I agree with you 100%. It is up to our representatives in government to vote to do the right thing and not make a vote just because the party says so. We can't continue to provide out of whack breaks for the super-wealthy. It is economically untenable.
To Mr. Arvanites,
It is refreshing to see a candidate engage in civilized conversation with voters and opponents. We, as voters, might not always agree on everything, but it is important to realize that and then have a conversation. Mr. Arvanites, you seem like a man who is willing to talk and to actually get things done. I am glad you are running. Keep it up!
Jon
2:35 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
The tax cut will benefit 98% of Americans? So what about that 2%? You are implying that it is hurting them, right? And that 2% are mostly job creators. So really you are hurting that 2% plus a tremendous amount of unseen people who gain jobs from this so called 2%. Democrats love class warfare. Not to mention the millionaire tax is for people making over $250,000, not quite a million.
Try raising kids, paying a mortgage and running a small business in the NYC area with $250,000. How am I supposed to expand my business? And the last time I checked rich people employee people with lower income, so why hurt the two hundred and fifty thousanders? Your logic and grasp of economics are just wrong. You may be a numbers guy but when you have the wrong formula it doesn't matter what your numbers are to begin with. I'll stick with Rodney in 2012.
Dan Grant
3:34 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
There are no job creators in the top 2 percent. If there were we would be rolling in jobs because they have had ten years to create those jobs. What they created was a class of priviledge and then all the rest of us.
Caldwellres
2:54 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Jon,
I appreciate your viewpoint, but the idea that if you tax the top 2% of Americans a little more you will be killing jobs is false. I don't believe that Mr. Arvanites is speaking at all about "hurting" the top 2%. He is merely stating that the top 2% should pay a fairer share of tax. Ultimately it isn't the rich that create jobs it is aggregate consumer demand, which is generated mostly among the 98%. Equally, only 3% of small business owners will be impacted by tax increases. These businesses are mainly law firms, professional corporations, and other types of partnerships that generate a large degree of revenue each year.
This isn't about class warfare, it is about creating a more stable and equal system. No one here hates the rich or thinks that the rich shouldn't be successful. Respectfully, I would argue by all accounts your grasp of economics is wrong. I suggest reading this article by Joseph Stiglitz a Columbia University economist: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/22/opinion/la-oe-stiglitz-inequality-20120722
Carl
10:07 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Read your Columbia professor Nobel prize winning article, wow now I know where Obama gets his economic talking points big govt economic control European style socialism at it best everything he proposes is govt interference which in reality is the problem the more govt gets involved in economy the lees free market dynamics we have we what everyone to make more money so they can decide to spend it or save it or invest it or a little of everything free choice no controls by life sucking govt taxes ,rules, regulation and bureaucratic red tape all hinder growth and creativity
Jon
3:15 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Who are you to decide what fair share is? I think fair share would be the same rate for everyone. Now that is fair. Or why not tax those that make less at a higher rate, is that fair?
Listen, we all know this is nothing but rhetoric. It sounds so nice and pleasing - the rich should just pay their fair share. The truth is that you can tax the top 2% of this country at 100% and that money would do not even be close to enough to fix the hole that we are in. Maybe you should read Hazlitt or Bastiat or a free market capitalist economist instead of some ivy league stiff.
Caldwellres
3:34 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Jon:
I ask you this, how would a flat tax impact a single parent working three minimum wage jobs just to feed their kids? First, the tax revenue from taxing a person such as this wouldn't begin to "fix the hole we are in," and at the same time would cripple them financially.
This is more about social responsibility than anything. Making sacrifice for many middle and working class families means giving up necessities, like healthcare or things as simple as a new pair of shoes for their children. For the top 2% sacrificed means driving a less expensive car or maybe taking a week long vacation instead of two weeks.
As for the credibility of Joseph Stiglitz, I think that a Nobel Prize in Economics speaks for itself, but I will let you reserve judgement on that point. My guess is you didn't bother to read the article, and that is fine. But, if you have a moment would you post a few links to your preferred economists. I would like to take a look.
James Johnston
8:14 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Thanks to offshore bank accounts, we have no idea how much money the top 2% are holding. Analyses of many countries have found that the amount of wealth held abroad exceeds their National Debt! These so-called job creators are no more than profiteers, with no loyalty to their nations nor workers.
Robert Simpson
9:49 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Mr Johnston: If you want an idea of the wealth of the top 100 Americans, Forbes publishes a list every year. Google that. Although there are some cheats, investing abroad is perfectly legitimate. Think about the foreign cars made in the U.S. or China has invested $1.2 trillion in our national debt.
You are correct, job creators are profiteers. If a business does not make a profit, they will soon be out of business. Businesses owe their loyalty to their owners.
Dan Grant
3:34 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
No one says that will fix the hole we are in. It is a part of the puzzle and you argue another talking point from the right. "It won't fix it all so why do it". It isn't meant to fix it all but it will help.
Jon
3:46 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson. Go get the book. You really, really should read it. http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
Robert Simpson
4:25 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
I say cut the size of government an amount equal to what the 2% tax cut would bring in. Taking money out of the private sector will make the economy worse.
Jon
4:25 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
That's the problem, it's not that it will help everything or help just a little. The real fact is that it will hurt everyone. Interference in the ECOnomy only messes it up and hurts it for everyone. (ECO like ECOsystem - interference by an outside source messes it up) True free markets and lower taxes for everyone will in the end benefit everyone.
Carl
10:07 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Jon great reponses to these socialist economic theories there is nothing fair about anything these people are suggesting or equal either ! govt is not the solution they are the problem! Less control and interference from our Govt. is the answer every time they try to fix a problem they create two or more problems ! They all need to read the book "The road to serfdom!"
John Lee
5:13 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Go ahead and call Paris Hilton, the Khardashians, and Willard Romney "job creators." Moving forward however I would like to be called a "Demand Creator."
Jon
5:31 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
How dumb are you? All those people created jobs through their shows, magazines, clothing, etc. And as for Willard... Have you ever heard of Staples? That's more than Barry right there. Or many other companies he saved. It's hard when Barack Hussien doesn't even have a resume to critic.
J
7:00 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
The top 2% WOULD also get a tax cut--on the first $250k of their income. What they earned above that would revert to the tax rate they paid during the Bush I and Clinton years, and as I recall the sky did not fall when they did so back then.
Linda Towey
8:37 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
I would hope that Rodney Frelinghuysen does the right thing and represent me. I need a break and assistance. Step up and thank you Mr. Arvanites for being supportive of the people like me!
Robert Simpson
9:51 am on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Linda: If the 2% are required to pay more taxes, they will get the money from somewhere. Perhaps they would give less to charity or fire the house keeper or not redecorate the house or not buy a new automobile or not expand their business. All these things would take money out of the economey. Please tell me how this is going to help you?
Jon
10:07 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Liberals are great advocates for taking other people's money.
Fran Hopkins
11:10 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
I will contact Rep. Frelinghuysen, but I'll ask him not to support the Democrats' plan. It makes no sense to raise taxes on anyone in this horrendous economy. It won't reduce our debt or deficit and it won't result in job creation; in fact, Ernst & Young says that it will cost us 710,000 jobs. Why do Democrats want to hurt those of us who are already suffering without jobs by making it even harder to find jobs?
And how can you call people who make more than $200,000 or $250,000 the "mega wealthy"? Many of those are small businesspeople, or a married couple consisting of a police officer and a teacher. This class warfare tactic of the Democrats is dishonest and divisive.
Finally, please stop calling the Republican proposal a "tax cut." The proposal is to keep the Federal income tax rates the same as they are -- taxes that only about half of Americans actually pay. Even President Obama agreed to this just two short years ago; he understood then that you don't raise taxes in a recession. Now he needs to fuel the class warfare flames in the hope of being reelected. It's sad that so many people fall for this.
It should also be pointed out that tax rates alone are not the only factors that affect job creation. Massive deficit spending, debt, overregulation and the upcoming "Taxmageddon" all make it impossible for most businesses to grow and prosper.
Want things to get better for all Americans? Vote Republican in November! It's our only hope.
Caldwellres
9:51 am on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Fran,
There is a glaring issue with this study that you cite. It assumes that the additional revenue would be used to grow government instead of deficit reduction. President Obama has targeted to increased revenue to go towards reducing the deficit, which is something we need to do.
And Fran, tell me what kind of teacher is making $200,000 plus a year? The term class warfare is a dishonest and divisive in and of itself, and yet the GOP happily uses it to describe responsible economics. They use it to describe a president who has to this point restrained the growth of federal spending more than any administration since Eisenhower. Still, he is engaging in class warfare. I would like a definition of class warfare.
If we are going to talk about only half of Americans paying taxes we should also clear a few things up. The people you are speaking of are elderly, retired and on fixed incomes. Perhaps we should tax their social security checks or put them back to work? The other portion is made up of tax credits for children and for the working poor. (see http://goo.gl/WXzgi)
And to your final points. Taxmagedon is another dishonest and divisive term devised by the spin doctors on the right. Last time I checked, we are in a massive recession because of under regulation (remember the banks?). If only that had been regulated properly. Let's just blame class warfare though. It would've saved me a whole bunch of time.
J
9:51 am on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Fran, please list all of the towns where teachers and police officers are routinely paid $125k or more per year. I want a job there!
I realize you get all of your talking points from Boss Limbaugh, but the "half of Americans pay no income taxes" canard is just laughable when you look at the facts. The members of that club have a special qualification--they have virtually no income! They include the desperately poor and the long-term unemployed, but primarily consist of retirees scraping by on Social Security. I'm sure they'd gladly trade places with you in order to have a decent income (even if they had to pay some taxes). Really, your post is an example of class warfare at its most contemptible, intended to dupe the middle class into believing that they have more in common with the super-wealthy than with the working class and poor.
Edward Hotel
3:15 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Just looked at Nutley police, 27 active police making between $150k to $120K, and 22 retired at $65K or better.
Robert Simpson
3:15 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Parsippany budget for policeman salary is $12,997,724. There are 90 policeman. The average salery is $144,419. I haven't checked teachers salarys, but keep in mind they only work 10 months per year. The average wage in NJ is $48,000
Jon
3:15 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Actually Fran is right and you are wrong Matt and J. Half of Americans who file income taxes receive more money back then what they put in. So no its not children and the incredibly poor like you said. 50% of people who file income taxes do not pay any income taxes. There are also people in the group you mentioned who don't even file taxes - that is to hard to keep track off. So in reality you are talking about a population where well over 50% do not pay income taxes. It's from loopholes and rates in the tax code that was put into place for political pandering and power struggles. I don't care what party. But it is fact that 50% (an estimated 46-50% albeit) of filers do not pay income tax and even if you say that it's because the poor need it - your saying that 50% of the country is poor?
J
7:22 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Please reread my comment. I made no mention of children. Quite the opposite. The majority of those who pay zero income taxes are seniors living on Social Security benefits.
I do agree with you that the tax code is littered with all sorts of loopholes and credits that should not be there. But the last time I checked most poor people and retirees lacked the means to hire lobbyists and donate millions in campaign contributions in order to obtain these goodies.
John Lee
3:49 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The 50% of people not paying income taxes is actually the number of people who do not pay PAYROLL TAXES - big difference. Payroll taxes are for earned income, doing a job and receiving a wage or salary. Income from rental, dividends, capital gains and other investments is income and is taxed, but its not a payroll tax. A particular news channel has been repeating the "50% of Americans don't pay" mantra and its being altered to tell a different story.
Jon
6:33 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
And you didn't directly address the issue. I think everyone knows the difference between dividends, capital gains taxes and so forth. So why is it 50% don't pay anything? I think they should pay their fair share.