Fair & Balanced
Today’s deep thought:
Is it too much to ask of the media when discussing budget deficits and “we’re broke” rhetoric to discuss how much in tax cuts and incentives we’ve just given to rich people and/or corporations? I’m pulling my hair out on the concept of “shared sacrifice.” shouldn’t shared sacrifice mean the rich need to share?
Really I have no idea how the media keeps thinking of itself as balanced. They may not be partisan but we are consistently given the rich guy’s view of things (hence we talk about debt instead of jobs). The media is classist.
Tags: Budget, class warfare, Tax Cuts
An opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics wrote:
Ahhhh, but they do! The wealthy pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes, and the wealthy have the higher marginal income tax rates.
What you really mean is that you want the top producers to bear an even larger portion of taxes than they already do.
If President Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way, and the 2001/2003 tax cuts had expired for the top producers, it would have yielded about $41.5 billion in additional tax revenue for FY2011; the projected budget deficit for FY2011 is $1,645 billion. Having those tax cuts expire — and assuming no other changes — would reduce the deficit to $1,604 billion.
The top 1% of taxpayers, ranked by AGI, earn 20.00% of adjusted gross income, yet pay 38.02% of all income taxes; how much more do you think they should have to pay?
Assuming that the top 1% of producers paid 100% of their income in federal income taxes, and such caused no other economic changes, we’d still have a FY2011 federal deficit of $352 billion.
How is paying the same tax rates as they have paid for a decade any kind of sacrifice for the rich? They are asking us to work 2 more years and take less benefits. The rich pay less in taxes on their incomes – they only pay 15% on investment income and much of their pay is not subject to SS tax. Many corporations pay no tax at all and some (like oil companies) receive huge government subsidies. If “we’re broke” we can no longer afford to pay these welfare queens.
If we’re saying “shared sacrifice” I want to see their share of the sacrifice.
no one is saying that dana…. if the super rich paid what they paid under CLINTON (3% higher than they pay now) we’d be in much better shape. Sometimes you really show your Tbaggery when you assume that “shared sacrifice” means the rich (i guess you think we are talking about you) have to pay every poor person’s bills.
what is NOT shared sacrifice is cutting taxes on people who dont know how to run a business, then cutting help for poor people to pay for it.
God bless you guys for taking on Dana’s endless parade of straw men. The bottom line is that he is a charter member of A.F.P.F.A.V.S.N.O.A (Americans for Prosperity for a Very Small Number of Americans.)
“Mission Statement: We are a bunch of broke ass dumb fucks who are dedicated to protecting the wealth of the super rich.” You can google it.
Duh… in absolute dollars the rich pay a lot. (You have to be pretty simple minded to get it, so I’m not judging you.)
Corporations are another deal. They need a free ride in order to create jobs in China.
1. The rich basically don’t pay the payroll tax (or maybe only in January). Any comparison of what percentage the rich pays vs. the middle class needs to account for more than just income tax. Look at all of the taxes (sales tax, phone tax,..), and see what a bargain the wealthy have.
2. The rich are the ones who mainly benefit from the operation of the government. Look at all of the government programs. Who do they primarily serve? Most Federal Departments are for the wealthy (Justice, Agriculture, Treasury, Defense, Commerce,…).
Here’s a fair way to see if the rich pay too little in tax:
Does the operation of the government raise or lower the gini index? If it raises that index, then the wealthy do not pay enough. If it lowers that index, then the wealthy are paying too much. Simple..
p.s. The gini index skyrocketed under Bush.
The rich also don’t pay the same rate on investment income that workers pay on earned income. In effect, the workers are underwriting the investment class. This was Warren Buffett’s point about his income vs. his secretary’s.
Seriously, Dana, why is that fair? Don’t trot out the “to spur investment” line, either. All the benefits of that investment have gone to the top 1% or 2%, and they don’t even have to invest it in this country or American corporations. Why should working people underwrite investors when capitalism already gives investors the opportunity to make money without lifting a finger?
“The rich pay less in taxes on their incomes – they only pay 15% on investment income….”
And one thing should not be forgotten about this truth. When Bush and the Congressional Republicans first pushed reducing the tax on investment income, they proposed eliminating it altogether. That’s right, to make it 0%. They compromised on 15%. So in the fantasy of many Republicans, the rich would HAVE NO TAX OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER on investment income. They want a world where the drones work their asses off and pay the taxes to keep their power, privileges, and lavish lifestyles intact.
Socialist Ben wrote:
Perhaps you missed it, Ben, but I noted that, if “the 2001/2003 tax cuts had expired for the top producers, it would have yielded about $41.5 billion in additional tax revenue for FY2011; the projected budget deficit for FY2011 is $1,645 billion. Having those tax cuts expire — and assuming no other changes — would reduce the deficit to $1,604 billion.”
“Much better shape?” I hardly think so!
Geezer asks:
Actually, it isn’t. As far as I am concerned, if we are going to tax income — and personally, I think everyone should be taxed exactly the same, you, me and Bill Gates, since we are all equal Americans — then all income should be taxed at the same rate.
The only caveat I’d throw in there concerns dividends. Currently they are taxed twice, once at the corporate level, before distribution, and again at the individual level, as income. We should tax one or the other, but not both.
“the 2001/2003 tax cuts had expired for the top producers, it would have yielded about $41.5 billion in additional tax revenue for FY2011;
That doesn’t even make sense, since the extension of the BushCo tax cuts and estate taxes COST about $130B over 2 years.
” then all income should be taxed at the same rate.”
that would be fine if everyone was charged at the same rate for goods and services in relation to their income. someone who makes 34k a year should only have to pay 1.98 for gas where someone who makes 340k, should pay 19.80 per gallon.
If (lets say) 10% of a person’s income is $3000, they are barely scraping by and might need that money to, ya know… EAT. a person making 300,000 a year can afford to pay more than 10%.
and since you want to bring up Bill Gates, he has said his taxes are too low….. so there’s that.
@Dana “if we are going to tax income — and personally, I think everyone should be taxed exactly the same”
Focusing on income tax alone is fundamentally deceptive and dishonest. Let’s talk about the TOTAL tax load. I’ll bet you pay your payroll tax for the entire year,…
@Dana “Currently they are taxed twice, once at the corporate level, …”
Most corporations pay little or no tax. How does this caveat make ANY sense?
Sheesh, do any of these “harder worker, smarter” conservatives have access to a good accountant? If they did they’d benefit from all those lovely loopholes.
“The only caveat I’d throw in there concerns dividends. Currently they are taxed twice, once at the corporate level, before distribution, and again at the individual level, as income. We should tax one or the other, but not both.”
As LE points out, most corporations pay no taxes, so that’s a red herring.
As for what you consider fair, again, lots of people would disagree with you, for reasons many of them have elucidated.
The “capital gains are taxed twice” argument is logically indefensible and is routinely never extended to many income earners:
“Conservatives claim that income from corporate dividends is “taxed twice” — first when the corporation pays its taxes (if it does pay taxes), and then when the recipient of dividends pays taxes on that income.
They don’t claim, however, that when you pay your plumber the plumber shouldn’t have to pay taxes because you already paid taxes on your income. That’s different, I guess, because you and your plumber both have to work. Income from working has no such considerations of favor.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/tax-tricks-is-corporate-i_b_545527.html
Currently they are taxed twice, once at the corporate level, before distribution, and again at the individual level, as income.
And those corporations are passing on their tax cost to consumers — whether they pay those taxes or no.
Maybe we should start taxing the subsidies that corporations get from taxpayers.
UI, I think that your general thesis that the media is biased by class is spot on. I often think of how newspapers–even liberal news sites like Huffington Post–have entire sections specifically dedicated to “Business” but none specifically dedicated to labor or the working class. Their glaring needs as a class notwithstanding, the working class don’t merit special recognition and attention.
Your insights about these matters are Chomskyesque. Have you ever read Manufacturing Consent? Although the evidentiary news media data cited in the book is somewhat dated, the overall model the book employs is (I believe) still relevant.
Dana makes a well-thought-out, cogent argument in his comment and the very first thing that happens is that he is personally attacked for his beliefs (and indisputable data) by socialistic ben (typical response on DL, btw)
” Sometimes you really show your Tbaggery when you assume that “shared sacrifice” means the rich (i guess you think we are talking about you) have to pay every poor person’s bills.”
Gotta love the socialistic rage.
And I especially love this little tidbit that Dana presents:
“Assuming that the top 1% of producers paid 100% of their income in federal income taxes, and such caused no other economic changes, we’d still have a FY2011 federal deficit of $352 billion.”
That’s an amazing statistic, and it all but debunks firebrand Michael Moore’s meme that “ we are not broke!
And btw, jason is suddenly a scholar in all-things fallacy-related. He invokes his ‘straw man’ response when it suits him, but never invokes it when he, or nearly every other DL poster uses it. Do you even know what a ‘true’ straw man argument is?
Is it the same as an irrelevant thesis? an incorrect statement? an irrelevant argument? DO tell. Ninety percent of your arguments are argument ad metum, single-cause, association fallacy and ad hominum.
And 100% of your arguments are flat out wrong. You already know that the talking points aren’t welcome, and here you are not only defending them, but defending them with more talking points.
You are in a position to lecture people here when you are capable of adding more than the, you know, talking points. For cryin’ out loud.
“That’s an amazing statistic, and it all but debunks firebrand Michael Moore’s meme that “ we are not broke!”
No, it doesn’t. Check out the link I provided above. As for cherry-picking the one insulting, as opposed to factual, response, I don’t think anyone here is surprised.
As to his “indisputable” data, I would add “irrelevant.” Just because conservatives insist on restricting the discussion to income taxes doesn’t mean we have to.
“And 100% of your arguments are flat out wrong.” Any viewpoint that doesn’t comport with yours is always wrong. That’s why people like you attack others ad nauseam.
Nearly every non-liberal thinking person who comments on here gets attacked. You reveal your ignorance on a daily basis.
Just admit that you hate the wealthy and corporations. It’s okay, just mouth the words. I h-a-t-e the W-E-A-L-T-H-Y…!
Someone please let me know if they discern “thinking” by the non-liberal dumb fucks who come here. Thinking (or links to support their opinions trying to pass as arguments) would be a refreshing change of pace.
Until then my policy will be to continue to not respond to the teabag nonsense.
It isn’t about viewpoints — it is about data. When you can’t manage it, you are wrong. By definition.
But thanks for trying to get your victim on, though.
@NH “It’s okay, just mouth the words. I h-a-t-e the W-E-A-L-T-H-Y…!”
Uhhh. Some of us here ARE the wealthy.
In fact, in the over $250k/year crowd, there’s a nearly even split between liberals and conservatives. And within that class, the single most determining factor is education.
An uneducated rich person is almost always a conservative, and a highly educated rich person is usually a liberal.
You should expect to find several wealthy liberals on a site like this.