Make the rich pay taxes. They can afford it.
Dave Burris, like many Republicans, thinks that people who pay taxes are suckers and losers. The very idea of paying their fair share of taxes to ensure our common defense or promote our general welfare burns their souls like a splash of holy water buring the devil.
Republican economics is underpinned by the notion that, through a variety of legal, shady and illegal schemes, rich people should be exempted from paying their fair share of taxes.
I say, after the Bush years, the rich can afford to pay up.
From the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities via MYDD:
Average pre-tax incomes in 2006 jumped by about $60,000 (5.8 percent) for the top 1 percent of households, but just $430 (1.4 percent) for the bottom 90 percent, after adjusting for inflation, according to a new update in the groundbreaking series on income inequality by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Their analysis of newly released IRS data shows that in 2006, the shares of the nation’s income flowing to the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of households were higher than in any year since 1928.
You read that right: 1928.
As Charles Lamos points out a MYDD, “If the Republican goal of the last 40 years has been to undo the New Deal and the Great Society then by this measure the last 40 years have been a raging success.”
Under the pretense of being in favor of “economic growth,” Republicans like Dave say that they “frown on redistributive economic policies.” However, the evidence is clear that their policies are nothing but a trickle, if not a flood, up – with economic catastrophe and negative growth (expect for their off shore bank accounts) to show for it.
Agreed. Let’s slant the table in the other direction for a while.
Trickle down = Piss on
Sounds like a formula that worked to help lead us into the Great Depression. Where’s the soup line?
I’m just going to put this out there and wait for Burris to respond: FUCK the rich. The concept of granting tax cuts to rich people and corporations as a means to stimulate job growth can now be shown for the ridiculous failure that it is. Tax these bitches and tax them now. You make over a million a year? 60%. Pay your fucking share. The country that has afforded you the ridiculous amount of wealth you earn now needs your help. As Joe Biden said, consider it “patriotic.”
The data on the top 1% is likely to be very different beginning in the second half of 2008.
But you are still correct – the party is over, the bill is due, and those who drank the most should pay the most.
Tax tax tax the rich. Redistribute their income. Make the US a more equal place in regards to income and civil rights.
Why is giving Billions of Dollars to the rich in tax cuts is good for the country? But spending that money to benefit the public is a waste?
More importantly we need to stop the roll back of the (extended) New Deal. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Aid to Dependent Children, progressive income tax and the Civil Rights Act are all important parts about what make American great.
The Radical Right that want to push us back to the 1920s are pigheadedly wrong.
I have a very close friend who was CEO of a major company, and – needless to say – filthy rich. We’ve had many conversations on taxes, and while he doesn’t “want” to pay more (who does) he openly admits that, on a percentage basis and with accountants that know every loophole, he ends up paying less (percentage wise) than me.
It’s not about gouging. It’s about fairness.
“Tax tax tax the rich. Redistribute their income. Make the US a more equal place in regards to income and civil rights.”
Superimposed over images of Obama and Marx, that chant would make a nice bumper sticker, Nemski.
Yes we need to tax the rich – thats how FDR did it. That’s why they consider him a traitor to his class. Paul Krugman talks about this in his book The Conscience of a Liberal. I’ve only read the first 5 chapters but find it interesting how much I did not learn in high school and college.
Miscreant, if you had any idea what you were talking about you’d be dangerous. Your argument was lost in the 1930s and again in the 2000s. The days of having a hands-off government are over.
It’s not Marxism – it’s social democracy.
Read a book, Miscreant.
Miscreant, Dave and the rest of the 20%ers will have a giggle.
“It’s not about gouging. It’s about fairness.”
Agreed. Percentage wise, the wealthy should should be paying the same as everyone else, but they shouldn’t be punished for their sucess.
This is where miscreant is just a ridiculous, absurd asshole. All he knows is what Rush and Ann feed him. Obama/Marx…Obama/Marx…Obama/Marx!
Percentage wise, the wealthy should should be paying the same as everyone else, but they shouldn’t be punished for their sucess.
Oh god, can’t you get any new material.
“Read a book, Miscreant.”
It’s more entertaining to come here and read the comics.
Percentage wise, the wealthy should should be paying the same as everyone else
So you are proposing a removal of income caps on FICA tax, and taxing capital gains and dividends as regular income?
Nobody is talking about punishing the wealthy, Mis. That’s just rich, victim spin. And they aren’t paying the same percentage as everyone else – which is the point.
The 15% Capital Gains tax is laughable. Make it 35%.
I’ve listened to your tripe on the radio more than I’ve ever listened to Limbaugh. Sad, isn’t it?
Leave it to Republicans to make the rich out as an oppressed victim class.
“And they aren’t paying the same percentage as everyone else – which is the point.”
That’s my point, as well. They should pay the same percentage.
LOL…victim spin. I like, pandora! Miscreant and the rest of his conservative ilk always bitch about how the poor complain of being victims. But all he’s doing is making rich bastards out to be the victims. Miscreant, our country is in need. Shouldn’t the rich feel a sense of obligation — of PRIDE — to help out their country when in need?
I just want to point out that the first sentence of your post includes the words “Dave Burris” and “thinks.” Again.
There’s only one person who knows what Dave Burris thinks. And it ain’t you.
So you are proposing a removal of income caps on FICA tax, and taxing capital gains and dividends as regular income?
I am.
Don’t forget rental income and inheritances.
They should pay the same percentage.
Percentage is only half the question. The other question is, percentage of what?
What’s sadder is that Miscreant and the people he pals around with have learned nothing over the failed economic policies and programs of Reagan and Bush 43. It is is they’ve had a Radical Right lobotomy.
Dave,
Thanks for your input Mister Tax Fairness is “Obscene.”
“So you are proposing a removal of income caps on FICA tax, and taxing capital gains and dividends as regular income?”
I am.
Agreed. My question was aimed at the flat taxers. In every flat tax scheme, somehow the rich never seem to pay anything.
There’s only one person who knows what Dave Burris thinks. And it ain’t you.
It’s the Radical Right talking points, correct?
“Percentage is only half the question. The other question is, percentage of what?”
I’ll use small words. Percentage of ALL income.
Well Miscreat that’s a start. But we have a huge mess to clean up, so the peeps that made the money over the last 10 years are going to have to pony up a bit more.
“Thanks for your input Mister Tax Fairness is “Obscene.””
I said paying 65% of your income to the government is obscene. Adding your opinion to my statement and then claiming that’s what I think just doesn’t fly.
Indeed, Matthews, didn’t Biden say it would be patriotic for the rich to pay their fair share?
Nope, it’s not obscene Dave. Our country being fucked over by rich bastards who use the tax code AGAINST us is obscene. Have them pay 65% for 5, maybe 10, years. Get us out of this mess, and then bring them down. Let’s keep this shit simple.
65%? Where’s that from? Not that I make a lot of money, but isn’t 35% the highest current rate? Isn’t Obama’s plan at 40%?
What doesn’t fly is your comment at 8:09 am in response to Alan Muller, which is in keeping with your other “Wah-conomic” wingnut comments followed by your “Who me?” comment in this thread.
Take a hike moron.
65% was the rate that Kennedy (actually Johnson) cut the top rate to – which Dave points to as a great moment in “Wha!-conomic” history.
I’ve said that the patriotic 65% rate (on all income for the top 1% of earners) should be restored. Dave – on the other hand, has stated that the middle class should pay for everything.
“Miscreant, our country is in need. Shouldn’t the rich feel a sense of obligation — of PRIDE — to help out their country when in need?”
I’m not rich, but all my life I’ve contributed (taxes AND contributions) without complaint. Someday, when you finally leave the nest, and are making a substantial wage, you’ll have some pride in the fact that you are actually making a substantial contribution. It’s a good feeling. Something for you to look forward to, Mike.
First of all, Mike, I totally disagree.
Second, they would never “bring them down” in the aftermath.
Third, they’d go out of their way to avoid making $1M or $500K or $250K or whatever number you think defines the line for the period you set.
Gracias amigo.
J — You get so angry when you’re called out. Which happens a lot. Find someone else to develop an unhealthy obsession over.
65%? Where’s that from?
1917-1981
Miscreant,
Peddling the same old bullshit I’ve come to expect from you. I have been “away from the nest” before. I know how to live on my own and I have. I could live on my own right now, but choose not to. So save your bullshit for someone who gives a damn. I have pride in what I make. I have pride in knowing I’m contributing to society via taxes AND frequent charity contributions.
Stop defending rich people, miscreant. They can afford their own goddamn lawyers.
Ha. Project much? How many ways have you been served this morning alone?
Suffice to say that your credibility is in taters as it should be.
Come on, Dave. Are you actually claiming that taxes would lead people to avoid making money?
Unless you think someone would actually say, “Sorry, Sir, but I’ll have to turn down that promotion because it’ll move me into a higher tax bracket.”
Or…
“Damn, my new invention/idea could make me a millionaire, but I won’t develop it because – even though I’m only making 50,000 now – I’ll end up paying more taxes on my millions.”
LOL!
“Stop defending rich people, miscreant. ”
If you can get past your biases and proclivity to pile on, I’m not defending rich people, or portraying them as victims. To quote the wise and beautiful Pandora:
“It’s not about gouging. It’s about fairness.”
How in the world does the Radical Right convince dupes in the Middle Class to agree that taxing the rich is wrong?
Because they all pray to Lil Baby Jesus, nemski. Lil Baby Jesus is the bond between rich and poor and the rich Lil Baby Jesus followers have used Lil Baby Jesus and religion against the poor for years now.
“It’s not Marxism – it’s social democracy.”
“Social democracy is merely a re-branding of Marxism.
“Read a book, Miscreant.”
You may want to expand your horizons past the usual liberal talking points.
I would say close loopholes before raising percentages. 60-65% just seems obscene to me.
You’re talking about someone getting only 35% of their income and the rest goes to the government… not to mention taxes from other areas, like local, county, state, consumer taxes…
If the problem are the loopholes than close the loopholes. Don’t raise the percentage to counter-balance the loopholes.
“Are you actually claiming that taxes would lead people to avoid making money? ”
Yes. If you’re thinking people won’t find a way around it, I have three words for you – special purpose vehicles.
And if I’m making $250,000 and paying 35%, why would I want to make $400,000 and pay 65% — and bring home less?
And Mike, don’t forget the cultural backlash, white resentment over civil rights. How else did the Republicans capture the South?
Miscreant,
You CANNOT throw out the “usual liberal talking points” line when you still accept the “Marxist” BS thrown out by your heroes McCain and Palin during the campaign. Look in the mirror. I guess you’re a victim of the “usual conservative talking points.”
The funny thing here is that I think Miscreant and probably Dave are middle class. (Or at least don’t have access to family wealth in the near term.)
Which means that they have either been willing dupes of a wealthy class of non-working wall street gamblers and trust-fund parasites – Or they aspire to join the ranks of non-working wall street gamblers and trust-fund parasites.
And if I’m making $250,000 and paying 35%, why would I want to make $400,000 and pay 65% — and bring home less?
Like that happens every day. Thanks for playing Dave.
BTW, $500K would be a net increase.
Maybe not Marxist. Socialist sounds more like it.
I think you don’t understand human nature, Dave. It’s human nature to want a promotion and find a new, better, and profitable way to succeed.
And the key phrase in your statement is “find a way around it,” which is what’s happening now. That’s the problem. I’m with Brian. Close the loopholes. They are what creates imbalance.
Or they believe in liberty and the power of the individual and don’t want to punish people for taking risks and being successful. Or, they believe that…
“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting classhatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.” –Abraham Lincoln
I thought my logic would get lost between the insults. Thanks.
Brian wrote: If the problem are the loopholes than close the loopholes. Don’t raise the percentage to counter-balance the loopholes.
But the loopholes were created by the Radical Right. They’ll fight just as hard to keep them open. There is no compromise here. The Radical Right has been waging a war on The New Deal since the 1970s and they almost won. It’s time to create a true Welfare State that helps those that cannot help themselves.
Pan — People making $500,000 already got the promotion. They’re the ones giving the promotions.
You can close the loopholes and still have things like deferred compensation and other measures. Not to mention the insane flight of businesses to other shores that would be caused by such a move. That’s okay. We have plenty of jobs to spare. Right?
Dave quotes Lincoln while disregarding the shambles of the US economy today created by those he pals around with. Priceless.
Given that the 1% are paying about 40% of the taxes, isn’t that enough? At what point is enough enough for you guys? Sheesh.
What’s amazing is this idea that you can just raise the marginal tax rates on “the rich” and that they will roll over and not fight it. That’s insane. Like someone pointed out upthread, there’s no point to making more money if you suddenly take home less because of it. That’s where stock options and all those sorts of tax-avoidance ideas came from in the first place.
I know the idea of cutting spending is verboten here, but isn’t there some place you guys would be willing to hold the line to reduce the deficit? Or do you not care about that now, just how much more cash you think you’ll get from the top 1% because it’s not “fair” they make more?
See comment 62. As I said, the Radical Right will fight to close the loopholes.
“created by those he pals around with. ”
Actually, I’ve never been in the same room with Bob Rubin, Tim Geithner, Chris Cox, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, George Bush, the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Phil Gramm or any of the other Republicans or Democrats in government who allowed the titans of the banking industry to carry too much debt and cause the current financial crisis.
Actually, if you pay attention, I pal around with a bunch of liberals on a daily basis.
The discussion about Conscience of a Liberal will be really interesting. Do conservatives realize that in the 50s (which is their version of paradise) the rich paid a much higher tax rate than now and unions were much stronger?
I think we should tax all income at least equally, and stop punishing people who work. Inheritence should be taxed – it’s income isn’t it? Why should Paris Hilton pay no taxes on money she didn’t earn herself? Capital gains should also be taxed – why should billionaire hedge fund managers pay only 15% tax through the capital gains loophole?
I think one reason are tax system is so crazy is not the different rates, but all the tax breaks. How the rich avoid taxes is by taking advantage of tax breaks and loopholes. We need to close them and make determining taxable income simpler and easier.
Why must one be a “dupe” if you think it’s unfair to take more than half of someone’s income just because they are wealthy? Oddly, I don’t feel envious of “the rich” and my chances of being in the top 1% are pretty slim. The idea of fairness has been thrown around, but it just doesn’t sound particularly fair to take half of someone’s income–anyone’s income.
It’s time to create a true Welfare State that helps those that cannot help themselves.
Good God. We already have a welfare state that “helps those that cannot help themselves.” And besides which, except for the small, small percentage of people too physically or mentally handicapped to “help themselves,” there aren’t very many people who cannot “help themselves.” If you wanna go help ’em, let them live with you and you provide for them. It’s insane to talk like there are huge numbers of people who can’t “help themselves.”
Dave’s Blame List:
Bob Rubin, Democrat
Tim Geithner, Democrat
Chris Cox, Republican
Barney Frank, Democrat
Bill Clinton, Democrat
George Bush, Republican
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, keeping the Right Wing meme alive
Phil Gramm, Republican
The insane flight of businesses to other shores has already been happening, which is why much of our manufacturing base has been killed. And much of that insane flight has had some tax subsidy from the government.
Close the loopholes, stop the subsidies and you still have to raise taxes some (65% brackets are quite unlikely) because there is still a government that has to be paid for. And the stuff that needs to be paid for includes:
War in Iraq
Nation building in Iraq
War in Afghanistan
Nation building in Afghanistan
Payments to the Coalition of the Willing for Iraq
Prescription Drug Benefits for Medicare
Pension Obligations handed over to the US Government
Bush-era Tax Cuts (which did not pay for themselves)
Additional subsidies for energy companies
Bailouts for Banks
And that is just the beginning. And this is the government that the republicans wanted. And no matter how it gets spun, it must be paid for.
Sharon, you have a lot of nerve talking about holding the line and reducing the deficit. Two things you guys could have cared less about for the last eight years.
“Dave’s Blame List:”
Actually, those are just the ones I don’t pal around with.
I don’t give a crap about the deficit right now. We have to help our economy first. Once we’re back on track we’ll have to address the deficit. Unfortunately we’ve 8 yrs of mismanagement so the deficit is already huge.
Pandora,
I haven’t supported or endorse large increases in federal spending, but you guys never saw an increase you’d turn down, either. Unless, of course, it had to do with the military or fighting our wars.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin (McCain’s Economic Advisor and normally an honest broker although he spent alot of his goodwill during the campaign, talks about taxes in a forthcoming book (via Joe Klein):
And now, in a forthcoming book by Fortune columnist Matt Miller, he makes it clear that the next President is going to have to raise taxes.
“If you do nothing on the spending side, you’re going to have to raise taxes whether you’re a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian,” he tells Miller…and then he immediately makes it clear that the “spending side” part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf.
“It’s arithmetic.” Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that “the pressure are there” to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control.
Miller does the arithmetic: that’s an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)
But come on, guys. What percentage of the outlay of the government do you expect “the rich” to pay for? If they’re already paying 40% of income taxes, what is it you want? 50%? 60%? 90%?
And what is it you think you’ll do with that money, since reducing the deficit isn’t on the table here? You think if you punish businesses for going overseas that they’re gonna keep jobs here? That worked real well before.
I know “tax the rich” makes you feel all warm and cozy, but what’s enough of someone’s income to take?
Sharon — They honestly won’t be happy until the “rich” pay for everything.
“And if I’m making $250,000 and paying 35%, why would I want to make $400,000 and pay 65% — and bring home less?”
Progressive taxation doesn’t work this way. It doesn’t tax the total amount at 65%. It taxes any amount over, to speak hypothetically, $200,000 at 65% and income below that at a lower percentage.
And what is it you think you’ll do with that money, since reducing the deficit isn’t on the table here? You think if you punish businesses for going overseas that they’re gonna keep jobs here? That worked real well before.
More Clown Shoes.
Reducing the deficit is certainly on the table.
And no one has cut the subsidies to businesses moving jobs off shore, so you have no way of knowing that that will do. While I do not expect that jobs will come back, I do expect that taxpayers will stop subsidizing the effort.
You need real information to be in this conversation, Sharon.
What real information are you offering, Cassandra? You sneered when I talked about reducing the deficit. You scoff and harumph and avoid the question when I ask how much is enough. As for “we have no way of knowing” what punishing businesses for moving anything offshore will do, I call bullshit. You know what it will do: they won’t decide to bring jobs back here because it still will be more profitable for them to be somewhere else and import items here. We know before that when we’ve raised tariffs, other countries raise tariffs against us. Gee, that’s no small part of what caused the Great Depression.
If you want to snark and avoid my question, that’s your business, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate. At what point will the rich be paying enough in taxes? 50%? 60%? 90%? 100%? Just stop acting like you don’t have an answer. If you think “the rich” should pay all the taxes, then say so. But the idea of “fairness” allows you to hide what you really want to do.
Let’s face it, rich people want to keep as much of their income as possible, and this is no different from anyone else. The idea that you can raise taxes without a corresponding rise in tax avoidance is ignorant.
And good luck with reversing that whole global economy thing.
Sharon — They honestly won’t be happy until the “rich” pay for everything.
Luckily for Dave, in Sharon he has a nit wit who will be comforted by that sort of nonsense.
It is a microcosm of the GOP isn’t it?.
Dave falls into the “aspires to be in the non-working wall street gamblers/trust-fund parasite class”, while Sharon is the “willing dupe” type Republican.
Not having real information, Sharon, includes your not knowing:
1. That reducing the deficit run up by your party is certainly on the table.
2. That somehow someone in this government had actually tried reducing the subsidies to US firms that off shore operations with no success. No one has tried it.
So indulge in all of the high dudgeon you please, as is your habit when you’ve been shown to be wrong.
At the end of the day, there is a Trillion dollar deficit looking at us with no recognition that the failure to pay (especially when there was money to be had) for some of the junk you guys cheered on is one part of the reason we are in our current dire straights.
U.I.- you make the most sense here-except for the inheritance part. Wasn’t that money already taxed prior to being set aside?
Don’t mind paying taxes here–but this whole tax the rich exorbitantly more is troubling. Don’t know your breakdown of rich, versus middle or upper middle class by what you post here. However, there is a huge difference in wealth acquisition by someone wildcatting portfolios on Wall Street, and the chump who spent 12-14 MORE years post high school at a cost nearing half a million in debt to become the neurosurgeon, oncologist, nuclear physicist etc.. I know it’s all end of the game money to you. But to some it did mean driving a ’68 Pontiac Tempest in 1981, eating popcorn for breakfast, and sleeping on a floor for a semester or two. Delayed gratification should have some interest accumulated in return on investment, since those whopping school loans are not deductible, and the interest is forever fickle. So while some of you had the red Camaro, Candy Jeans, and Farrah Fawcett haircut, while throwing pitchers back riding the Loop on the weekend, and returning to an “average”, “predictable” “interchangeable”, job on Monday–why would you begrudge someone late to the game of life, but “working”, their Jaguar, camelhair, and Christopher’s, when they finally earn big.? It was a gamble and a goal. They took it you didn’t, so what gives? Equity is one thing, jealousy or vindictiveness another.
Then answer her question. What percentage of the tax burden should the top 5% pay?
Joanne — Jason doesn’t draw those lines. If you’re rich, you’re inherently evil and deserve to be punished – no matter how you got there.
The top 5% should pay whatever it takes for us to get out of debt and pay off the deficit minus whatever their mortgage, grocery, education, and car payments may be.
How do you like that generality and oversimplification?
That’s not good enough. How much? What percentage of the taxes should be paid by the rich?
And by “the deficit,” are you including the $50 trillion in long-term entitlement obligations?
If the Iraq AUMF had been accompanied by a 5% war tax on the rich, the troops would have stayed home.
Anon is exactly right.
And as for Joanne — you probably don’t know that you are talking with a wide range of people here, including some who also went to school on loans, ramen noodles and barely running cars.
But should that special pleading prevent anyone from paying for government? I don’t think so. There is an entire list of Bush-era stuff that no one is paying for and I am wondering why paying for all of the stuff is so traumatic. You knew that none of this was free and the piper would need to be paid sooner or later. And the piper is here — courtesy of the badly run Bush government.
I like a war tax, but everyone should pay it except for the military, and spouses of soldiers.
I also think it should be voted via referendum every year for renewal.
Anon 88 – 100% Right.
FSP 85 – 100% Wrong. (Shocking! I happen to be a capitalists and have been pretty clear about my preference for taxing the non-working wall street gamblers/trust-fund parasite class. )
“The top 5% should pay whatever it takes for us to get out of debt and pay off the deficit minus whatever their mortgage, grocery, education, and car payments may be.”
Mike, why should the top 5% shoulder the burden for mistakes made by those who represent all of us?
or was that sarcasm that didn’t register until now.
One more thing for Mike — If you could guarantee that a temporary, five-year tax surcharge on the top 1% would go straight to the elimination of the deficit, you might not encounter that much resistance. But you can’t, because the congresscritters would dip their hands in, and it would go out dressed up as wasteful programs, pork and handouts.
J — You should be a capitalist with all the money you make as a captain of industry.
Should we set up a special “Office of the Special Advisor to the Government on Who Is and Isn’t Good and Who Does and Doesn’t Deserve to be Punished For It?”
Maybe you can even have the job.
Wha!-conomics 101: “the congresscritters would dip their hands in, and it would go out dressed up as wasteful programs, pork and handouts.”
Wha!!
Onenote Charlie. Instead, Mike – how ’bout a round of tax cuts for the top 5%!!
That should stimulate the economy right Dave!!
“have been pretty clear about my preference for taxing the non-working wall street gamblers/trust-fund parasite class.”
100% wrong, my ass.
#38:
“I’ve said that the patriotic 65% rate (on all income for the top 1% of earners) should be restored.”
Clear, indeed.
You want to solve the Social Security crisis long-term?? Lift the limit on income contribution. Continue contributions as income rises with a gradually descending percentage and a set cutoff for small business and self-employed at a predetermined income level. About three years ago I spoke with Rep. Castle at a town-hall meeting and with newspaper in hand pointed out that one of our local CEO’s income for that year computed to him having met his maximum SS contribution (and his companies match) in the first 15 minutes after midnight of the first day in January of that year. In 37 years as a comfortably-paid union mechanic I never had the luxury of earning enough in a year to meet that limit and enjoy even the final 15 minutes of that year without that obligation. Congressman Castle replied that the solution (lifting the limit) was viable but it not politically doable. Since the Reagan era of promoting “social injustice” the legitimacy and effectiveness of our progressive tax structure has been compromised to widen the chasm between the classes and erode the reality of a “middle-class” America. If we fail to restore that equity we ignore the plight and circumstances of all Americans.
Not having real information, Sharon, includes your not knowing:
1. That reducing the deficit run up by your party is certainly on the table.
2. That somehow someone in this government had actually tried reducing the subsidies to US firms that off shore operations with no success. No one has tried it.
Cassandra, that’s just more huffing and puffing by you because you didn’t like my question. I asked about reducing spending to pay off the deficit and your answer is asinine and snarky “It’s not our fault!” That answer doesn’t exactly say, “Yes, reducing the deficit is on the table,” particularly since the previous 50-odd comments were full of “Tax the rich! Fairness!”
Secondly, the idea that “no one has tried” cutting subsidies to business is bogus because if you actually cared about the economy, you’d be concerned about business and what makes them move operations overseas in the first place. It’s typically because the costs of producing things in the U.S. is high enough to make cheap labor elsewhere more attractive. I’m sorry you want to believe the fairy godmother is gonna wave her wand, take away subsidies to business and cause them to remain in the country, but that’s your fantasy.
So indulge in all of the high dudgeon you please, as is your habit when you’ve been shown to be wrong.
I’m not indulging in high dudgeon, Cassandra. I’m treating you the same way you treated me. You want civility, then show it, baby.
You still haven’t answered my question about what level of taxation is enough. But that makes sense because then you’d have to think about the topic.
Dave falls into the “aspires to be in the non-working wall street gamblers/trust-fund parasite class”, while Sharon is the “willing dupe” type Republican.
Shorter Jason: I have nothing useful to add, so I’ll make grade school putdowns instead.
And Joanne, I agree with you. There’s a big difference between the Kennedys who inherit their wealth and a doctor or entrepreneur who worked long and hard to be successful. But there’s no distinction here between these groups here, which is no surprise.
The top 5% should pay whatever it takes for us to get out of debt and pay off the deficit minus whatever their mortgage, grocery, education, and car payments may be.
So, now we’ve gone from the top 1% to the top 5%, which includes a large number of self-made and successful working stiffs like air traffic controllers, nurses, and computer programmers. These people would probably not categorize themselves as “the rich,” but now you’re arguing that they should fork over everything they’ve busted their asses to make to pay off everything. Nice.
I’d take that job and tax the holy crap out of Charlie Copeland on day one.
I know your attention span isn’t that long, Sharon, but this is what you said, and what I responded to. And as long as that post stays up there, folks will understand that you are working pretty hard at spinning out something to not engage with the fact that you were wrong. But spin away if that makes you feel good.
And I’ll be delighted to talk about a revised tax rate, if one of you guys will tell me why it is that you think no one need ever pay for the government you so loudly cheered on.
Yes, that was sarcasm with a very slim bit of honesty, Brian.
Cassandra, I’ve revised your #100 comment for some added snark:
“And I’ll be delighted to talk about a revised tax rate, if one of you guys will tell me why it is that you think no one need ever pay for the
governmentwar you so loudly cheered on.”JC –
So 65% on top 1% (exemption for Denists and other practioners of the medical arts) and all income treated as income.
Deal?
Cassandra,
Why don’t you start back at comment 64, where I said “reducing spending is verboten here” and Pandora responded that “I had a lot of nerve” discussing reductions in spending to balance the budget. I know you yourself are working very hard to keep up the perception that you, somehow, know what you’re talking about, but try some honesty on the subject. But then you couldn’t set up straw men like “why it is that you think no one need ever pay for the government you so loudly cheered on.” Really? I said that? Can you link to that, too, since you seem to think it proves something. I have never, ever said that “no one need ever pay for the government.” What I asked–and you refuse to answer–is what percentage of government should the rich pay for. I know it must trouble you to be pinned down like that but really. You have have some percentage in mind. And if you are really this fretful about the government, why don’t you give everything you make to the gov’t to spend as they will? I know you care more!
…and add John’s idea re: SS
Whoa!
For a second I read that to mean that Castle was honest for a second.
Now I see he simply said that it could not be done.
in short this is what I can assume from this entire thread:
people like Sharon AMAZE me that they buy into this crap they are sold by uber rich controlling our government.
She is no brighter than one of the terrorists flying planes into the WTC’s. They believed they were getting virgins. Sharon really believes the crap she spews about the rich and their share of taxes. Simply amazing. Astonishing actually. A person making less than $50k a year standing up for people making tens of millions a year. amazing
Sharon you really are clueless.
Burris changes the subjectb/c even in his utter stupidity at times he is at least wise enough to know the games and tricks that the rich play to avoid paying taxes.
Dave you discredit yourself when you defend the top 1%…as if discrediting yourself more is possible that is.
Miscreant is full of shit and get’s your goat each and every time. The guy is a troll, he doesn’t own a business, he doesnt manage people.
And there you go with you poor reading skills again, Sharon. Pandora points out that your interest in deficit reduction is very new — you certainly didn’t give a damn about deficit spending by this government when it was racking up this debt.
So we’ll mark you down (again) as someone who really isn’t interested in solving a problem, but just in throwing around failed ideological points. Which, I’ll point out again — is how we got here in the first place. The republican belief that government is free.
Sharon,
Answer this: Was it responsible for us to go to war with Iraq when there was no imminent threat? Well, I guess there was an imminent threat: I knew the imminent threat was a rapidly rising deficit and debt. You conservatives want to take responsibility for very little. Take some responsibility for the war in Iraq, OK?
“Dave you discredit yourself when you defend the top 1%…as if discrediting yourself more is possible that is.”
This, from you, is the highest form of compliment. Thanks for the encouragement.
Cass — I agree anon is essentially correct also. But the tenor of this post is more “get the rich guy”, and leave the rest of us alone. While, I do believe in a progressive tax, acknowledging lesser incomes need to allocate a greater percentage to survival; we shouldn’t turn around and “beat a willing horse”. Large earners accept and understand that progression, continue to give to charities, AND keep jobs right here. Socking it to ’em for the bookeeping of all of America, is unjust, short-sighted, and punitive for posting a profit. It provides germinating soil for all you have described in avoidance and exclusion. Don’t give them a reason for not WANTING to pay.
Hey, Joanne… wasn’t it you “socking it” to me over renovating my master bedroom suite? Just asking? 😉
“Should we set up a special “Office of the Special Advisor to the Government on Who Is and Isn’t Good and Who Does and Doesn’t Deserve to be Punished For It?””
I nominate Santa.
Jason
The remark “Since the Reagan era—” was mine not Castle’s. His reply at that meeting was that single sentence. My remark is a current summary of where we are today re fairness and “equitable” treatment of all Americans. “Equitable” should not be defined or framed (as it is by the Right) into meaning I keep my stuff and you keep yours and, by the way, you’re on your own with that need for heat, light, food, medicine and all those other luxuries that you expect from a civilized society. And I don’t and didn’t agree and will not agree that it is not “politically doable” That is a frightening attitude for a self-proclaimed “social and fiscal” moderate to assume.
John Kowalko: “You want to solve the Social Security crisis long-term?? Lift the limit on income contribution.”
You’re kidding.. right? People still over-contribute to the system? Now THAT’s blind faith I can’t wrap my head around.
Don–the clueless are the people here screaming “soak the rich!” without bothering to ask themselves why they think “the rich” are just gonna willingly fork over tons of money without trying to avoid the extra taxation. It’s also clueless to assume that anyone disagreeing with you guys must be “dupes” who “make less than $50k a year” and, obviously, aren’t envious enough of people who make more.
For the record (read slowly and carefully, cassandra), I have made no argument here against progressive taxation. I simply find the “make the rich pay!” argument to be juvenile and shallow. Gee, we haven’t heard of this before, have we? You guys are such freakin geniuses they should send you all to Washington and everything would be solved, because nobody ever proposed or enacted progressive taxation before. Sheesh.
Cassandra, I know that setting up your own strawmen makes it easier for you to make your arguments. My concern about debt and deficit reduction isn’t new, but it doesn’t matter if it is or not. It’s irrelevant to the argument about raising taxes on “the rich.” I guess it gives you cover not to answer my question, though. Pointing out that your proposed solution is antithetical to our history or the philosophy of the founders doesn’t mean I think government should be free. But keep saying it is. It makes it easier for you.
And Mike, yes, I think it was responsible to go into Iraq. I think it’s worth the money we have spent and we will spend. I think liberals who bitch about human rights and then bitch about the war in Iraq are hypocrites. There, that’ll give you something to go nuts about while I go run some errands. Have a good weekend.
The rich may pay the bulk of the taxes, but they certainly don’t pay that share in taxes. Don’t they control more than 40% of the nation’s wealth? (I’ll have to look this up.) Since the super-rich have reaped the benefit of the 30 yrs. of Reaganism, which shouldn’t they pay more to clean up the mess?
We can no longer afford these Republican wars – we need that money to clean up the mess the Republicans left domestically.
As far as inheritence being taxed twice – so what? Lots of money is taxed twice. When I pay sales tax with my after-tax earnings, I’m being taxed twice. What I’m concerned about is the war on working people. Wages are treated differently than other sources of income. Inherited money is a source of income, like wages, but most people don’t have that luxury.
I simply find the “make the rich pay!” argument to be juvenile and shallow.
Typing slowly for the so-called conservatives among us, but this is not my argument. There are folks here who are making this argument, but not me. All I want to know is when you start expending the same energy for actually paying for the government you wanted.
But hey! Thanks for playing, even though we apparently all look alike to you.
LOL, Burris, Sharon, Miscreant… keep shoveling through Republican economic theory, there must be a pony in there somewhere.
Going to war for human rights? Whaaaaat? Sharon, you’re spinning so much you’re going to hurt yourself.
What about all those WMDs you guys were crowing about? What about that smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud? Attempting to morph these things into a human rights argument takes the cake.
Jason (103)–No Deal–Still too high for all. I do think greater accomodations can be made for school loans, or costs. But how about the inventor, or rock star? It may not be tuition paid, but a tab of hard-knocks, rejection,closing clubs, failures etc.We don’t want them all doing concerts in Japan do we?
Pandora (111)-Yea-is that bedroom ready for us yet? I’m sure we can count that towards your 65%!
No doubt, Pandora, but pretending that multiple brigades of soldiers plus associated tributes to KBR/Halliburton are apparently not worth paying for.
Joanne, if you’ll do the laundry, you have a deal!
On a more serious note… if Republicans would invest a fraction of the time they devote to the rich to the middle class… Especially, since most commenting here strike me as middle class. Why aren’t you fighting for yourselves? Why are you fighting for what you hope you might be?
Truth is… you’ll never attain your lofty dreams if you keep screwing yourselves.
“But hey! Thanks for playing, even though we apparently all look alike to you.”
Are you kidding me? Honestly, how can you complain about being lumped in with a whole class of people on this thread?
We’re not screwing ourselves. It’s the opium of politicizing wealth, by RESENDING those derelict in duty, that manage to do it for us, without the benefit of a kiss! That’s why you can’t vote a straight ticket.
Don–the clueless are the people here screaming “soak the rich!” without bothering to ask themselves why they think “the rich” are just gonna willingly fork over tons of money without trying to avoid the extra taxation.
Ohhh I’m so scared of some rich guys going into tax exile WHAH…!
I say fuck ’em. They are already in tax exile here and enjoying the benefits of my heard earned tax dollars.
Jason,
You are so right about the super-rich being in exile. They can probably go a long time without ever experiencing what the rest of us experience. They don’t attend the same schools and most of them have never had to live paycheck-to-paycheck. I can’t even wrap my head around the concept of a “celebutante,” someone who is famous for being rich and famous.
“Republican economics is underpinned by the notion that, through a variety of legal, shady and illegal schemes, rich people should be exempted from paying their fair share of taxes.”
Unless you get rid of the IRS and the complicated tax code you will never have the “equality” you seek. The more complicated you make the tax code the more ‘wealthy’ people will get around the code.
Skip the class warfare, it won’t change anything.
What is a “fair share”?
Should it be a fixed percentage?
Or should it penalize the successful above a threshold?
I think the problem is that the Right’s been very effective at screaming “MARX!” but we’ve been less effective at tarring and feathering the Hoovers of the right.
Mrs Isotope wrote:
How about the fact that it was already taxed, more than once, as it was earned in the first place?
I’ve come to this thread late, and have only skimmed through some of the comments, but one theme from our friends on the left is clear: there is a concept behind all of this that people’s wealth and earnings aren’t really theirs, but the property of The People as a whole, and that The People have a perfect right to take whatever portion of Other People’s Money to which they can get the government to agree and enforce.
I assume that under our incoming president, high producers will be taxed more. The lower capital gains and dividend tax rates will expire, as will the tax rates set by the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Such won’t be voted upon by Congress, of course, because that would be politically difficult.
But it won’t matter. Those of us who are high producers will still be high producers, and those who are poor will remain poor, because a few increased handouts don’t make low producers into high producers.
FSP asked:
Five percent, of course.
You see, the Framers had it right when the Constitution prohibited the federal government from imposing direct taxes on any basis other than population. They held the apparently quaint notion that each citizen was equal in rights and responsibilities to every other citizen.
Then came the worst idea ever, and the repugnant Sixteenth Amendment, and Congress was given the power to tax indiscriminately, a power which it has exercised to excess.
And thus we have the situation which obtains today: people who earn little money see the government as a mechanism by which to expropriate the earnings of those who produce more. The notion of working harder to earn more for yourself if you need more money has been relegated to the status of anachronism.
The top 5% do pay more than 5% these days, much more. In tax year 2006, the top 1% of earners, categorized by Adjusted Gross Income, earned 22.06% of total AGI, but paid 39.89% of total federal income taxes, with an effective tax rate of 22.79%. That, contrary to the illusions of our friends on the left, was the highest effective tax rate of any income group.
The top 5% earned 36.66% of total AGI, but paid a whopping 60.14% of all federal individual income taxes, with an effective tax rate of 20.68%, second highest among income groups.
One wonders: just how much more do our friends on the left think they should pay?
As we expand it to the top 10%, we find that we earned 47.32% of total AGI, but paid 70.79% of total income taxes; our effective tax rate was 18.86%.
Well, what about the poor? The bottom 50% of earners — half of the whole country — produced but 12.51% of AGI, and paid less than 3% of federal income taxes, 2.99% to be precise. Their effective rate of taxation was a mere 3.01%. I’ll be very blunt here: those of us who do produce are already carrying those of you who won’t!
Well, it’s going to be a bit humorous when the Bush tax cuts expire. In tax year 2000 (refer down to Table 6), the top 1%, who paid 39;89% of all income taxes in 2006, paid less. at 37.42%, while the bottom half paid more, 3.91%. When the tax cuts expire, so does the lowest, 10% bracket.