We the people have already lost.

[ProSense]

3. No, we really

In reality what needs to be done is this, raise the tax rates on all of us. The plain, simple fact is that we do need revenue, much more revenue than the rich can realistically be parted with at this point. So put us all back on the Clinton tax rates, after all, we seemed to do alright even when we were paying higher taxes.
Second, raise capital gains taxes on the rich and well off. Another tax that is at historic lows, and a way of insuring that those rich trust fun babies who don't work also pay their far share.

... haven't lost. Let's look at Boehner's three choices:

1) Accept the President's proposal with "dividends to be taxed as ordinary income" and the "estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million."

2) Pass the Senate bill, "which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent," but excludes Obama's dividend proposal.

3) Go over the cliff when "the estate tax is scheduled to rise to 55 percent beginning with inheritances exceeding $1 million."

In each case, the tax cuts for the rich end.

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021948493

Another thing, while rates for the 99 percent remain in effect, the rates for the top one percent go up beyond simply ending the Bush tax cuts.

In particular, the Obama administration’s call for higher revenue through increased taxes on high incomes — which actually goes considerably beyond just letting the Bush tax cuts for the top end expire — gets treated with an unmistakable sneer in much political discussion, as if it were a trivial thing, more about staking out a populist position than it is about getting real on red ink.

Krugman: What Defines A Serious Deficit Proposal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021914963

In fact, the rates are 2 percent to 3 percent higher:

Under Clinton, the top 1 percent paid 33.4 percent; under Bush it paid 29.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 35.3 percent, less than two points than under Clinton.

Meanwhile, under Clinton, the top 0.1 percent paid 36.9 percent; under Bush it paid 32.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 39.7 percent. By contrast, every other group would be paying lower rates under Obama’s proposals than under Clinton. (A table detailing these numbers is right here.)

It’s true that the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent would be paying more. But the significance of those hikes shrivel dramatically when you consider how much better these folks have fared over time than everyone else has. The highest end hikes shrivel in the context of the towering size of their after-tax incomes — and the degree to which they dwarf those of everyone else, something that has increased dramatically in recent years.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html