When the rubber meets the road, let’s be clear about precisely who the party of higher taxes is–Democrats. If you had any doubt, and you shouldn’t have, let the numbers do the talking. Feast your eyes upon the tax increases Democrats are putting on the backs of “wealthy” American families.
If your family income is $75,000, your tax increase will be $1,126; if your family income is $100,000, your tax increase will be $1,837; if your family income is $200,000, your tax increase will be $3,672 . . .
Crossposted from Musings from Middle America
And when the Democrats put the floor of the tax cuts to be at $250,000 and they keep the tax cuts for those making less..
That will be where the rubber meets the road!!!
What you have written here will mean nothing. Meaningless right wing HOG WASH!!!
The chart shows the effect of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The former republican majority wrote that expiration date into the original legislation.
The chart fails to show the effect of the Obama administration’s tax proposals, which would prevent tax increases for the great majority of American taxpayers when the previous republican legislation expires.
What we’re looking at in the chart is the potential effect of blocking the Obama tax proposals. I rather doubt the minority party will attempt to do that. By doing so, in effect they would be raising taxes on the majority of American voters.
The former republican majority would be prior to 2006. And the reason the expiration was put in there is because the former DNC minority…would not vote for “any” tax cuts unless it had an expiration date in it. That was back when being the obstructive minority was “patriotic”.
Further, the vaulted administration has no bill in the works that would reinstate any of the cuts and it would be nearly impossible to enact a bill before the end of the current term. As is typical, everything that Obama says is smoke and mirrors. Also, Dc has it correct. The Bush tax cuts could not have been enacted without some Democratic support and the price was the expiration dates.
Why do I remember Obama campaigning on the promise that “. . . if you make less than $250k your taxes won’t be increased one dime!!” Must have been just a dream, but it sure turned into a nightmare.
Disturber
i gotta tell ya when i skim through greg’s stupid rants, and i see he does not capitalize republicans, it really makes me hate those republicans, i tell ya. thanks greg for helping me see the light.
@Disturber, #4:
Both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed by way of reconciliation.
The 2003 tax cuts were particularly controvercial and resisted by the democratic minority because they were directed largely to higher-end taxpayers–the most significant features were tax cuts on dividends and capital gains–at a time when two unfunded wars were already underway, and Bush’s very expensive prescription drug plan had just been pushed through Congress.
The final vote in the Senate on the 2003 tax cuts was 50 for and 50 against. VP Dick Cheney broke the tie by casting a 51st Yea vote. Only 2 democrats in the Senate voted in favor of passage.
2001 Tax Cuts vote breakdown in the Senate –
YEAs 58
NAYs 33
Present 2
Not Voting 7
2003 Tax Cuts vote breakdown in the Senate –
YEAs 50
NAYs 50
Vice President Voted Yea
@Greg: TWO posts by you in ONE thread??!! What? You getting tired of being a drive by moonbat? 😛
Wingnut territory has grown so large of late that the cost of gas and tires has become a serious consideration. Even we moonbats are feeling the pinch of the recession.
Greg, those stats, while interesting, do not tell the whole story. The Republicans could not have mustered enough votes to overcome a filibuster and as a result, there was back door dealing that resulted in the cut offs. This was especially true in 2003.
The Democrats always believe that higher earners are to be punished, yet more than half of the working population pays no income tax at all. At some point perhaps, the Dems will come to the realization that it is the small business person that creates the private sector jobs and they cannot do that without having enough capital to expand their businesses. The primary way that small businesses accumulate capital is to save it from earnings. Many “high income” individuals are actually business entities that report their income as either shareholders of an S corporation or as partners, or as the owner of another kind of pass through entity such as an LLC or LLP. The amount of “income” that is passed through is often larger than the actual cash received because most small business people leave the earned cash in the entity as working capital and only draw from the entity as is necessary to support life style. So, while on a tax return they may appear to have high earnings, on a spendable basis, the cash withdrawn is often a fraction of that higher figure.
The Democratic demagoguery of these individuals as being rich and in need of redistribution is precisely what is dragging down the economy at present and will continue to do so until there is a clear vision as to what is ahead. My company could easily expand by several employees as I have been in business for decades and have a strong customer base. However, we are not taking on work because the costs of additional employees is uncertain in extent but is certainly going to be higher than we can charge our clients as we compete against entities that work off the books or hire illegals without paying any benefits and without paying workers comp. Most of my business friends are in the same boat or if they are expanding, they are doing it through outsourcing to independent contractors so as to avoid the benefit load.
It seems the strategy of the current administration and the Dems in general to extract the maximum amount from small business in order to support the unconscionable salaries and benefits of public employees. I find it very sad that my employees, who work hard, contribute a great deal, and take nothing from the public dole, earn about 60% of the average public servant who contributes little or nothing to the economy. I find it amazing that Michelle Obama’s retinue of 21 hand maidens are paid a total of $1.2 million per year essentially at the expense of the taxpayers who get nothing from those expenditures. What does she contribute that requires 21 people at her beckon and call.
Greg, you are certainly well informed, but your ideology has failed wherever it has been tried. Even Castro now admits that his statest model is a failure. It has failed here and the Dems are likely to see an extreme rejection of their philosophies come November, perhaps of historical dimensions. Whether their replacements will be able to turn things around remains to be seen, but I will make a small bet that Obama, who is obviously tired of being President, will not run again, and Hillery is damaged goods. The Dems are once again destined for a long period in the woodshed, and they have worked hard to earn it.
Disturber
The point of this statement is that taxation matters.
ROFLMAO @Greg #9. It is good to see a liberal with a sense of humor! You might be the missing link, Greg for I have never found a liberal with a sense of humor before.
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS! I love your blog!!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
It’s calling paying your fucking share! Nobody understand what a fair share is when you make less than 10k a year, a fair share is 0. You can’t tax the poor, they don’t have money you fucking lunatics!!
@Shawn, #13:
That’s a good point that’s often missed, Shawn.
The working poor who pay no federal income taxes still pay 7.75% of every dollar they earn in FICA tax. They still pay 18.5 cents in federal taxes on every gallon of gasoline they buy. They pay various federal excise taxes–on their monthly phone bill, for example. Throw in state sales taxes on top of that. The unavoidable taxes the working poor pay can have a much more dramatic impact on their lives than the higher tax totals paid by more affluent Americans.
@Greg
The tax issue is a completely moot point as far as fair share goes. The liberals wish to play class-warfare politics with tax cuts, implying that the economy would be much better served by raising taxes on those they deem able to pay them. It’s a convoluted argument by liberals to do so, as the Bush tax cuts, and tax cuts enacted by prior administrations, have moved the economy forward and increased overall federal revenue, EVERY TIME IT HAS BEEN DONE!
It is pure jealousy on the part of voters to support any raising of taxes on anyone, but especially those making much higher incomes. In many cases, their jealousy has no basis, as the people making those higher incomes worked harder and risked more to get where they are. Not always, but in most cases that is true.
To support raising taxes on those making above a certain amount is lunacy on many levels, not the least of which is that people who make those higher incomes readily invest and spend more than those making less. To take money directly out of the economy, and use it for any type of governmental action, from a stimulus to paying down the federal debt is asinine. The country would be much better served by voting to make the Bush cuts permanent, and even cutting taxes(not issuing credits like liberals love to do) for business. The common sense and historical viewpoints surrounding tax cuts and hikes defines the liberals who support raising taxes either stupid, or politically motivated and the economy be damned.
@CRAP
Some questions about the above quoted statement. Why stop at $250k? Why not take it to somewhere just under $100k? It seems to me that if we are going to do as some liberals suggest, and take more from those who can afford it to pay down the debt, then going even lower will help more, right? Or, why not just let them all expire. That way we can get even more federal revenue, right? I mean, it isn’t about political posturing, is it? If we are for altruistic motives, forcing people to help the government moneybags, so they can give more to needy people, why not go even farther, and not only let these cuts relax, but go so far as to raise them beyond what they would revert back to. That way, everyone can join in the pain, and the needy can get even more for everyone else’s money, right?
The simple answer to the first question is that it is plainly political posturing on the part of liberals to set a monetary amount for the cuts to relax above. That way, they can be seen as middle-class champions, while fighting the evil rich. It has nothing to do with any economic common sense, and even less to do with economic reality that they chose that number.
Before any taxes are raised, Congress should first cut back on spending and they can start by cutting their own staff budgets by 20% across the board.
Then they need to cut the WH budget by 20%…. and for good measure defund the NEA, because it is a luxury we can’t afford. Everyone else in America is making hard choices on what they can afford, what to keep and what to let go…. it’s time the Feds did the same.
Next Congress needs to take back responsibility for Legislating and defund the EPA… Congress is responsible for making the laws, NOT Government Agencies.
Then we talk about raising taxes, but not before. Because raising taxes without stopping spending is spitting in the wind…
The FICA tax is only 6.2% Greg. Don’t know where you get your numbers.
Besides, if they make as little as you claim, they get an advanced earned income credit, which is actually a government subsidy borne by the rest of us (as usual).
@jlfintx, #18:
I did in fact have a typo in post #14. Sorry. The FICA rate is actually 7.65%, not 7.75%. That’s 6.2% Social Security tax, plus an additional 1.45% Medicare tax. FICA represents the total of the two.
Except Obama cut the EIC. The amount each eligible taxpayer receives was cut in half in the Porkulus Bill.
@johngalt, #15:
To me it seems like simple common sense that those who most benefit from an economic system should be expected to contribute more to support it.
I honestly don’t know what the wealthy are complaining about. Consider the progressive federal income tax schedule as it existed in 1954:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code#Progressivity_of_the_1954_Code
A lot of people in our society work very hard just to make ends meet and often work very hard without being able to do so. In recent years more and more people have been falling into that category, while wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top. This isn’t a healthy trend, and I see no good reason to further accelerate the process.
@Greg
The simple fact is, that those who do benefit most from it, support it more than others. They do so by investing their extra income, allowing companies to have capital for improvements and expansion in their business. They also buy more, due to more buying power, transferring some of their gained wealth to others through the process of capitalism.
That is the answer of a liberal. The only thing I can say to you, Greg, is to imagine someone taking that which you have worked hard and risked much to gain, for nothing more than political posturing in order to pander for votes.
A couple points on this one.
One, wealth is not a static entity, where if it is gained by someone, is lost by someone else. Total economic wealth increases or decreases based on the economic mood, activity and other factors. To talk about it concentrating in one area, while implying that it isn’t also gained in others is wrong, and belies the jealousy of one who doesn’t have the wealth of others.
Two, who are you, or Obama, or anyone else, to decide who gets wealth and who doesn’t. By supporting the increase of taxation upon a specific group, is discrimination, in this case, based on economic conditions of that person or persons. Essentially, you support an ideal that says that hard work and high risk ventures are not to be rewarded, but punished by removing the fruits of one’s labor. You support thievery of a group based on their economic condition and is not much different than supporting something like discrimination based on race or sex.
Three, the government, and it’s economic status(debt and deficits) do not make the economy. In a capitalist country, the economic action of the citizens themselves are what drives the economy. Government can set conditions for fair trade and business practice, but should do nothing more. The economy does not revolve around the amount of wealth government has on hand, only the citizens which it is charged with governing. This is the misconception liberals fail to realize. A government that removes more and more wealth from private enterprise, no matter what the intention of that removal is, does nothing more than take away buying power that could be put to good use within that economy. Even if a government spends that which it takes in, it does so selectively, and not usually according to the laws of supply and demand. It upsets economic balance, even when the stated position is to set the balance.
All of your comments, taken together, show nothing other than a jealousy of those who have gained more wealth than you. And your answer, and that of liberals, is to take that wealth forcibly and distribute it as you see fit. Tyranny, anyone?
@ johngalt
Truly sir, your post is a work of art.
Greg, if you went to a burger joint to have your favorite hamburger and a some other people came in and could afford the hamburger you had, would you rather:
A) make your own decision as to whether or not you decided to share your burger.
or
B) have a government worker come over and take your burger by force, tear pieces off and hand them out to those deemed worthy by the governemnt worker and leave you with the rest.
I was looking for a better anaology, but I’m swamped at work. That is the earned income tax credit in a nutshell.
Oh, and Shawn…Those making under $10,000 a year should look for a better job. Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, at full time that comes out to $15,080 a year. Plus you get the earned income tax credit, I’m sure you would qualify for food stamps, and other government assistance. Because in the U.S.A., being poor means you only have 2 TV’s with cable and a DVR.
@johngalt, #23:
In other words, the wealthiest provide extraordinary support for the system simply by utilizing their gains in a manner calculated to maximize the further increase of their own personal wealth. Any system mechanisms that interfere with that process in order to further societal objectives, or that moderate the accelerating concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few, are detrimental to the system as a whole, and to all who have no choice but to find their places in the resultant economic hierarchy. What’s best for the wealthy is best for America.
I reject that as a ruling principle. While capitalism is obviously the most powerful economic engine imaginable–the system that best reflects human nature, harnessing human creativity by providing the most direct path to rewards for individual efforts–it also contains a danger of the tyranny of concentrated wealth and power. This is as true in a democratic republic as in any other system, because political power and influence over public opinion can become purchasable commodities like any other commodity, for sale to the highest bidder.
To my way of thinking, completely unrestrained capitalism and extreme concentrations of wealth represent obvious societal dangers. Rational regulatory mechanisms and sane redistributive mechanisms are necessary to keep the engine from blowing itself up–or to keep an angry multitude of those the system has pushed into a corner from taking it apart.
“Balance” is an important word to me, too. Unrestrained capitalism is not balanced. Nor would an economic system and state attempting to incorporate all of the principles of socialism be balanced. True balance is generally found somewhere near the center, between the extremes.
Greg, you fail to comprehend Human Nature when it comes to wealth. People who are deemed the wealthiest in the Nation and are expected to burden large increases of taxation will legaly relocate to outside of the taxation systems that would be imposed on them before it will hit. If you take for example of New York and California who had imposed various State taxations on the “wealthy” earners of those States you will see that their revenue returns dropped in conjunction with population decrease while neighboring States with lower taxation policies saw a rise of revenues along with population increase. Business owners and investors are not going to tollerate some village idiot coming in and dictating how to run their private funds and wealth, and will move. It has been the core base of Human Nature.
It is also Human Nature for the village idiot to try and manage and control those the idiot deems under its charge. These people resent such an idiot and the tactics used, and the more the idiot pushes for power the more aggressive and powerful the people against the idiot grows.
@Mr. Irons, #26:
Fine. Let ’em go abroad and deal with the village idiots there, who will likely allow them to set the rules of the game only for so long as it’s to a foreign government’s advantage. Maybe they shouldn’t expect U.S. tax breaks to facilitate that desertion, and untaxed access to the market composed of the U.S. workers and communities they’ve abandoned, however. Why should they? They’re not really working for the good of their own national economy any more. They’ve become its competitors.
@Greg
Are you really so obtuse that you think that is what I’m advocating?
One, as I’ve said before, what gives YOU or anyone else to support forcibly removing more wealth from those above certain economic stations? The Constitution? Your own jealous desires? Or, your own ignorance on economic matters?
Two, I am not advocating for the wealthy. Far from it. My wish is to have government leave more wealth to private pursuits in order for the economy to actually move ahead and grow. And guess what? I benefit from that. So do you and every other ignorant liberal wishing the wealthy weren’t quite so wealthy. Your reasons why you support the higher income earners paying more taxes actually don’t matter, because if you had your way, the whole country ends up paying the price.
Three, as I’ve said before, and will say many times more I’m sure, every time a tax cut has been instituted, federal revenue has increased. And what’s more, every time a major tax increase, which is what allowing partial relaxation of the Bush tax cuts would be, is instituted, the economy slows and federal revenue drops. Why would you wish to support something that would further weaken an already struggling economy?
@johngalt, #28:
I suppose we could trace that back to the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Revenue Act of 1913.
No one likes paying taxes. Most accept that, understanding the necessity. I’ve always paid taxes at higher rates than those having lower income than myself. This never struck me as a fundamental injustice. I consider myself fortunate to have fallen into higher brackets. Nor has it struck me as an injustice that those having far higher income than I do should have a higher rate still.
Progressive tax rates can be characterized either as an additional burden imposed on the rich, who are getting along pretty well, or as a lessening of the burden on the shoulders of low-income Americans, who are often struggling just to get by. I take the second view.
@Greg
Comprehension is lacking on your part. I suggested that nothing gives you the right to support higher rates of taxation of those at or above certain economic stations in life. Nothing. To suggest that progressive tax rates, particularly by raising taxes on those above $250k, alleviates any burden upon those who are considered low-income is asinine. Why, you ask? Because of the simple fact of higher federal revenue gained by keeping tax rates of the “wealthy” low. More federal revenue means less taxation needed, at least if the purse strings are held tighter than what they have been.
Your arguments mean nothing in the grand scheme of things because of the benefits of lower tax rates. Anything else is pure jealousy on your part and the part of liberals across the country. Your argument in a previous post about economic inequality regarding wealth means nothing if the economic engine is stalled by abusive and excessive taxation that restricts and retards economic growth. Your argument in the above post that it is not an injustice put upon those making more than you to be subjected to a higher rate of taxation shows the jealousy you and other liberals have of those earning more.
Did Bush’s tax cuts achieve a higher federal revenue in the following years after it was enacted? Yes. Will higher tax rates on those with the capital to make the economy strong again, retard growth even more than it has been? Yes. Those answers are irrefutable. Go look at any history showing economic activity and federal revenue versus tax cuts and tax hikes and it is clear. Knowing that, why on earth would you support a tax hike on those making over $250k at this time? To do so seems pretty stupid, if you ask me.
@ johngalt, #30:
I think the cause and effect relationship there is actually a matter of debate. Higher tax revenues were arguably attributable to an unsustainable level of economic activity resulting from easy credit, a deliberate suppression of interest rates, and lack of concern about taking on excessive debt because of an illusion of increasing wealth related to the housing and commercial real estate bubble. Excessive leveraging throughout a financial system awash with derivatives also played a big part in the creation of an unsustainable illusion. Revenues went up because of the frantic pace at which imaginary money was moving. Revenues tanked when the bubble popped, and the illusion built on the bubble went with it. Increased taxes didn’t play much of a part because taxes hadn’t gone up, and still haven’t.
I don’t see how we can repeat the cycle of an overheated economy, because we’re still saddled with the public debts we ran up the last time around. We’ll probably be lucky to see sustainable gains and long-term stability.
The real problem is going to be how to cut spending. It’s easy to talk about, but it’s going to be like handling political nitroglycerin when anyone gets down to the particulars.
@Greg: Let me add my two cents as it were, to this discussion. It appears that you are failing to appreciate that taking from the “rich”, simply because they are “rich” is a bad thing.
Allow me to explain this the way I answered my daughter when she came home from school in her Freshman year in high school asking what socialism was. They had started discussing it in her current events class and barely touched on the subject before the bell rang and the class ended.
I said to ask her to imagine that she gets called into the Principal’s office along with 9 of her classmates. They are all straight A students. The Principal explains that the school appreciates their hard work and achievements that got them to the their 4.0 GPA. Then he explains that there are 10 very nice students who are flunking the 9th grade and need my daughter and her friends’ help. It seems that these 10 failing students are really nice kids, they are just disadvantaged, come from broken homes, etc… and it isn’t fair that they are flunking while other kids have all the good grades.
So what the school wants to do is to take my daughter and her friends’ grades down from straight A’s to straight C’s; then the school will apply those two grade levels to the failing kids so they can go from straight F’s to straight C’s just like my daughter and her friends. That way everyone will be equal.
As you can imagine, my daughter thought this was the stupidest idea in the world. She often misses out on after school activities and social engagements with her friends because she is studying and it wouldn’t be fair to give her hard work to some kids that go home and play video games and ride skateboards instead of doing their homework.
I said, well welcome to our tax system. You have that to look forward to when you get older.
I know it is an oversimplified explanation, but it is the essence of socialism and our progressive income tax is straight out of the Communist Manifesto.
I hope this helps, Greg.
@Greg
The results of the Bush tax cuts are demonstrable in their effect on federal revenue. And, as far as tax hikes go, I wasn’t specifically speaking of tax hikes since the Bush tax cuts, but rather, the previous tax hikes our country has had foisted upon us.
Finally, a statement I can agree with. Cutting spending will be a major fight, mostly because of the entitlement mentality millions in this country have. Everyone cries when their slice of pie is cut, and even when the spending increase isn’t what they expected. The one area we don’t need cutting from is defense. Everything else is fair game as far as I’m concerned. I know you don’t think so, but being as defense is the one indisputable spending area specifically delineated in our Constitution, you will have a hard time convincing those of us who wish to retain a powerful military.
@antics
Somehow, I doubt what you’ve posted even registers to him. Fair share is a hard concept to relate to when the higher income earners pay a disproportionate amount of the total income tax receipts. In the end, Greg and his fellow liberals believe in an arbitrary percent to define ‘fair’ in economic terms. I strongly believe that if the top 10% of income earners paid 100% of all income tax receipts by the government in this country, yet the wealth gap was still climbing, that Greg and his liberal pals would rail against the “rich” and propose a higher tax rate for them. It isn’t about fairness at all. It is about jealousy and power. Jealousy on the part of liberals, and power for those politicians they support.
It’ll be interesting when republicans finally get around to explaining what program cuts will be necessary to balance the budget while simultaneously cutting taxes on the highest end of the income scale, or when voters finally manage to work that puzzle out for themselves. Suddenly middle and working class American conservatives are going to realize who’s actually going to take the brunt of the hit. It’ll be the person they see in the bathroom mirror each morning.
@Greg: Nothing to say about my post #32? I know it was a tad oversimplified, but it is a correct analogy.
As for tax cuts having to be “paid for,” well since lowering taxes causes more business owners to hire, which puts more wage earners (also paying taxes) in the check out lanes at the stores then income rises with lower taxes.
However, to you question of what to cut. For starters an across the board 20% budget cut would get us back to basically where we were pre-Obama for that is about the amount he has raised discretionary spending. Then we need to cut the dead weight and get rid of some of these agencies that are not necessary. I mean in the 2010 do we STILL need the Rural Electrification Adminstration? The TVA? I could go on.
One more I would add to the list: The NEA – our Federal Government has no business getting involved in education.
@anticsrocks:
I like analogies, but there’s always a question about how applicable they are to the matter at hand. I think grades and wealth might be a bit too much of an apples and oranges comparison.
A central issue with increasingly concentrated wealth is that it can increasingly empower those on the receiving end to control the rules of the game to their collective advantage. I like the idea of a level playing field, where people are empowered by their abilities and efforts as individuals–not collectively empowered as members of an emergent ruling class. I think distribution is a valid issue here, even though the totality of wealth isn’t static. Highly concentrated wealth has been a hallmark of ruling classes throughout history, even when the totality of wealth has been very low by modern standards. Such times were not known for their level playing fields. That of modern America seems to be increasingly tilted.
I don’t think that collective empowerment element is present in the matter of grades. Individuals attain high grade point averages by virtue of their native abilities and hard work. The A students don’t get together and try to modify the rules of the game to make maintaining high grades easier for them as a group.
Well, I see that Greg is still pounding the “tax the rich” drum.
He wouldn’t be the first here at FA to do so.
Here are the ugly facts regarding tax cuts and tax revenue:
Greg, you contend that the “wealthy” received tax cuts. Well, you’re right. The wealthy did receive tax cuts, as they should have. However, so did every other American who pays taxes.
Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut under the Bush plan.
Everyone.
Everyone, including you Greg.
The tax cuts offered to the lower brackets were actually more expensive in terms of not being offset by increased revenue. Aren’t those the ones that should be eliminated since they didn’t pay for themselves?
Considering the rate of taxation that the upper percentages are burdened with, why shouldn’t they receive tax cuts commensurate to their burden?
Considering the opportunities, jobs, careers, and value that those people offer to American society as a whole why should they be discriminated against?
Under the Bush tax plan the burden of tax responsibility actually shifted toward the rich:
Greg, in 2006:
Compared to 2000 (pre-Bush):
The economy experienced a significant period of growth in the quarters following the tax cuts:
Yes, I believe that the rich had every right to get a larger percentage of the tax cuts. I’m a big fan of equality. You’ll have to forgive me for proudly espousing true American values.
Of course those, like yourself, who disagree with tax cuts were perfectly free to send in a check to the IRS to offset those horrible, unspeakably evil tax cuts you received, if indeed that’s how you really felt about the issue.
It’s easier though to cash the check, enjoy the windfall, and bitch about it all the while.
Sort of like all those globaloney warm-mongers who whine, gripe, complain, and look for ways to control the lives and tax the rest of us all while they drive their big cars and fly around in their fancy jets.
As I’ve asked others before you, does your argument regarding taxation represent hypocrisy or is it just lip service?
I would ask if the GLOBAL business entertwine trafic moving money out, should also be a big reason of lost revenue and jobs in AMERICA, would I be wrong to think so,
that there where more jobs and revenue before the signing to legalyse GLOBAL EXCHANGE.
which have been ABUSED at this time.
@Greg
Explain to us in FA-land just why you believe this is so.
IMO, the high income earners are holding onto extra cash right now, waiting to see how the wind blows, if their taxes will be raised, just how Obamacare is going to affect them, and what other programs Obama and the liberals enacted or will enact and how they will affect their money. When and if some semblance of stability returns, they will move their extra cash into investments and buying and spur the economy forward again, although it won’t happen if the new stability results in more wealth taken from them.
@john galt, #40:
The working and middle class have seen the progressive errosion of real wages, the progressive decline or loss of employee health benefits, loss of employee pension plans, and a decline in the value of mutual fund investments. If they’ve invested in home ownership they’ve seen a marked decline in equity. While inflation hasn’t officially been a significant factor, the costs of everyday items such as groceries, gasoline, and prescription drugs–all omitted from the consumer price index–have trended higher and higher. College costs for the kids have skyrocketed over the past decades. If you’re a small saver, your interest rates have plunged to abysmal lows, even on high balance accounts. You’ve had to pay taxes on every dollar of that interest as a reward for your responsibility, your economic conservativism, and your desire to retain personal control of your money.
All of these trends have had a far more dramatic effect on the lives and the long-term financial planning of those of median income than on the very wealthy. For someone of median income, they absorb or effect most of one’s total income. For the very wealthy–with the exception of upscale real estate holdings–they represent only a small fraction.
Given the foregoing, a majority of median income Americans have likely not met their modest retirement goals, even if they’ve been fortunate enough to have never found themselves in the unemployment lines. Forget lower income workers. After a lifetime of work, they’re lucky if they’ve kept the bills current and have enough put aside to see them through short-term emergencies.
Now, consider what social programs are necessarily going to be hard hit if we made a serious effort to balance the federal budget while simultaneously eliminating progressive tax rates, and who will be most affected. We might throw in the additional fact that those hell-bent on tax cuts and spending cuts seem to want put one of the single biggest recurring cost items–defense spending–strictly off limits.
That’s my reasoning.
@Aye Chihuahua, #38:
Yet the wealthiest would like nothing better than to do it all again. Assuming they’ve seen the chart, I must commend them for their spirit of self-sacrifice during a time of great national difficulty. (Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.)
As I suggested in #31, the cause and effect relationship there is debatable. Other factors were at work, and arguably had much more to do with the increased tax revenues generated by an overheated economy. The tax cuts undeniably redirected a large portion of the benefits of that situation.
After that entire episode has played out and we’re tallying up the scores, who realized the big gains and who’s ultimately left to deal with the long-term consequences? Where did the money move to, and who’s feeling the pinch?
To me those seem like important questions, when politicians are arguing that we need to do the same thing again.
@Greg
You’ve explained well the difficulties facing the middle class and working poor in today’s economy, but you’ve failed to explain why they would take the “the brunt of the hit”, as you described it. Monetarily, and as percentage of income, those in the middle to lower classes are not going to be affected negatively due to maintaining the status quo regarding the Bush tax cuts. In fact, they will end up better off when the hidden cash reserves start flowing again when people get over the confusion and hesitation to do anything with their wealth, as is the case right now.
Not only will the economy start moving forward again, but new jobs will be created to meet certain demands by consumers that aren’t all that likely right now.
As I’ve said before, tax cuts for the higher income earners benefit everyone who participates in the economy, not just those who receive the cuts. Right now, it isn’t the cuts we are really talking about, but tax hikes due to relaxation of Bush’s cuts. Your argument for allowing them to relax for the high income earners is pointless and ends up being that ‘ they can afford it’. For what, may I ask? Why must they give up more of what they’ve earned? It certainly isn’t due to hoarding wealth at the expense of others. That ignorant view has been debunked here constantly. It certainly doesn’t help the economy to take wealth out of private hands and shift it to the government. The stimulus has proven that government spending will not take us out of the current economic doldrums.
If it is due to ‘fairness’, which you have proclaimed before, then who are you to decide what is ‘fair’? For that matter, who is anyone in congress to decide what is ‘fair’? Your fairness bar is set based on jealousy and arbitrary figures. Who are you or any liberal to decide when someone has earned enough, and after that amount should be punished?
You keep coming back to some asinine argument that wealth has concentrated amongst a few, yet you discount the gained wealth of millions upon millions who, without the continual investment of the wealthy few, would not see even as much as they have in 401k and mutual fund gains over the decades.
Your argument truly boils down to the fact that you think government has the right to set standards on income, punishing those who make too much, and that government knows best how to spend peoples’ wealth. You trust government. I, however, do not. Even when the GOP controls congress, the WH, or both. And for all of your infantile whining about ‘fairness’ and supporting governmental thievery of people’s property, you end up supporting the cause that will take us farther down the road towards a true depression. The fact that we’ve been round and round about this, including graphs and facts on some people’s parts, and you still don’t get it, makes me think you and your liberal friends are more dangerous to our country than any half-crazed Islamic terrorist could ever be. You willingly desire the removal of wealth, from private enterprise, to the detriment of all.
Our Constitution provides for taxation, that is true, and I give what I must, as that is the law. But, our laws for taxation, bastardized like they have been, have made it progressively harder, not easier, for men to attain higher wealth. They have also made it less rewarding, knowing that the high income earners pay most, both in dollars, and in percentage, than other economic classes. The laws are discouraging, not encouraging, for men to strive for more, and you and your liberal friends are the culprits, and all based on pure jealousy and nothing else.
You are nothing more than a beggar in the bazaar of life, if you wish for those who have more, to be forced to give more. Me, I care nothing of anyone’s wealth, except that I will stand up to protect their interests, as my interests coincide with theirs. If they do well, so does the economy, and so do I. If they are forced to have less, then the economy suffers, and so do I. Essentially, you are supporting that which does you the most harm, and you don’t even see it. One who advocates for punishment of another, even at the expense of their own welfare, is either ignorant, or insane. Which are you?
@johngalt, #43:
Sorry, I thought I’d made my thinking about that clear. In a nutshell, I think it’s the working and middle classes who have recently lost so much ground that will ultimately have to contend with cutbacks in targeted programs like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, educational assistance, etc. Those who have gained the most ground won’t be so hard hit as those programs are progressively defunded. They’re unlikely to ever be in a position where they’ll have to depend upon them to get their kids an education, or keep themselves out of old-age poverty.
Isn’t it largely the people who are sitting on all of that concentrated wealth who have removed it from private enterprise? It could be used to their advantage now, but they’re letting it sit in hopes of using it to even greater advantage should tax policies change. The working and middle classes are hanging onto whatever they can out of fear of a future in which they will have nothing, and little in the way of a social safety net. Their concerns are near-future to immediate.
@Greg:
Well, you can “debate” whatever you like of course.
The problem that you have is that over the course of history, whenever tax cuts have been implemented, the results have been the same. So, debate away however you must, but debating won’t change historical fact.
I notice that you didn’t have any comment regarding this information:
How much of a burden for “the rich” is enough for you?
Should they be paying it all?
@ Aye Chihuahua, #45:
I’m not sure what accounts for the percentage shift. Possibly it’s a reflection of a realtive decline in the portion of total income received by those in the lower tiers, when compared with the portion of the total recieved by those in the highest. I won’t assert that’s the case since I don’t have the income stats, but it seems like a plausible theory.
😯 Now there’s a thought.
Perhaps when we arrive at the point where the richest few own everything, and all the rest of us have been reduced to the status of serfs or indentured servants, a case might be made that the owners of the system should be footing the bill for 100% of the maintenance fees.
@Greg: Let me commend you on the fact that you are discussing this issue instead of hit and run tactics being employed.
You said:
Here is my thought on that. Let’s assume your statement is true. Under an oppressive regime, the wealthy would feel more need to “control the rules of the game” to their “advantage” since they would be harder pressed to have achieved that wealth. If you had a flat tax system, rather than a progressive tax system and a government that is friendly to small business and the corporate world, then the need to fix the game in favor of the wealthy would not be so present.
In capitalism, the more the folks on the lower end of the income spectrum have to spend, the better the folks on the upper end do because they are the ones who own the shops, stores, etc…
Just a thought.
@Greg
And why is this, Greg? Maybe because of Obama’s and this congress’ action’s that have led to a state of uncertainty in the economy? When people aren’t sure how they are going to be hit, whether it’s increased taxation from doing away with the Bush tax cuts, or increased healthcare expenditures, or uncertainty about cap-n-trade, or the governments financial reforms that do nothing for small-business, or the spending of more money that is sure to result in higher taxation somewhere down the line. And guess what? I don’t blame them one bit. None of the things that Obama has done has made them feel comfortable placing their wealth in investments where the risk has gone up.
You want to blame them for ‘hoarding’ their wealth. I blame Obama for causing the situations that make them do so.
anticsrocks just commended you on not doing drivebys but that is exactly what this is. In order for your statement to have even a semblance of truth to it, one must assume that wealth is a static entity, which I have explained before as being a false assumption. Business models change constantly, and what was new becomes old, as new products and inventions take root. The older money invests in the newer businesses, creating paths for new wealth to be obtained, new industries to form, and more jobs for the country. This doesn’t happen as much when government takes away wealth from the private sector, nor when it causes situations where the investing of wealth doesn’t happen(like today, for instance).
The blame for the country’s ills, that you wrongly place on the wealthy, is squarely placed upon those in political power, who create the uncertainties that cause economic activity to slow. ‘Fairness’ to liberals is just a word used to take more from those who have it. And the governments run by liberals do nothing to create an atmosphere where those who don’t, can obtain it. They just create more groups that get the governmental handouts. That is where we are heading, Greg.
You rail against the wealthy and big business, like they are all evil. You fail to mention that the wealthy and big business have given the average citizen more and more luxuries in life. Bill Gates and his contemporaries in the computer industry gave the average citizen the ability to have a computer in their home. Big Business and the wealthy have given us medicinal breakthroughs and medical procedures and medical equipment designed to save or lengthen lives. Big Business gave the average citizen the ability to carry around a phone, nearly everywhere they go, and place and receive calls from them. Big business and the wealthy have given us the multitude of choices available for dining out, shopping for clothes, buying the necessities, etc., etc., etc. Government has given us none of those things. Government has given us nothing of real value. Yet, you wish government to take the money from the private sector that has given us all the things mentioned above and more, to redistribute somehow to the poorer amongst us. We, the conservatives, wish the private sector to keep more or their wealth, so that all may benefit from the new products, medical breakthroughs, and new industries formed, not only for the benefit of the things being sold, but the jobs created for those poorer amongst us.
In the end, you wish people to slave away and live for the sake of other’s, and for other’s to live for their sake. Your desires, based on your writings, are for serfdom and slavery for everyone, for the collective good of all. The things you promote inhibit freedom and liberty. You can tell yourself that you wish for all men to be equal, but none of what you write about gets us there. None of what I write about gets us there either. The difference is, what I wish for America is the equality of opportunity for all, even when the results aren’t. You wish for the results of man’s labor to be equal, and insist on government to bring people down to the level of the lowest common denominator. When that happens, there isn’t equal opportunity for all, as their isn’t real opportunity for anyone.
To get where you are, in terms of thinking, one must apply the concept that all men’s thoughts and accomplishments aren’t their own, but the collectives’. You make it so that a man’s hard work, energy, and desire, are not to be rewarded to him alone, but the reward is to be divvied up amongst the collective. You are the one speaking in terms of serfdom and slavery to the system, not we conservatives. You desire the common man to be equal in all things, and any attempt to further oneself in life is to be despised and looked down upon. We, the conservatives, desire for all men to reach out and attempt that which they dream of, and if one succeeds, is rewarded for it, by keeping the rewards of their hard work and ingenuity.
You desire the removal of wealth from certain individuals, whom the government and you have decided have too much of it. To do so, you support the raising of their taxes, in a progressive tax scheme, in order to do it. Essentially, you support economic discrimination of individuals. The individual is the smallest minority on earth. Yet, you seek to discriminate against individuals, by requiring certain individuals to give more of their wealth, more of their property, than others. Individuals have rights to their property, and you seek to limit certain individuals rights, by discrimination due to individual economic conditions. You would no more discriminate against a black man, or a woman, so then why discriminate against those who have more property, which is, essentially, discriminating against a minority?
If you cannot see that what you support is, in effect, a soft tyranny of men, then there is no hope for you. When others’ wills are imposed on certain groups, or individuals, by support of a majority, the rights of the minority groups are infringed upon, and tyranny of the minorities is the result.
@johngalt, #48:
Is it an advocacy of tyranny to observe that some rational constraints on individual behavior are required to maximize our collective individual freedom?
Wealth might not be static, but the totality of it at any given point in time is finite. Consequently the matter of it’s distribution affects everyone, regardless of what that fluctuating total might be.
It’s not just an issue of wealth itself, and the comfort and security that wealth can provide. There’s also a correlation between money and power; between money and opportuity. If you have little or no money your power is reduced, and your opportunities to alter that situation are significantly lessened. Would anyone deny that? The words advantaged and disadvantaged, when used to describe one’s economic status, imply much.
Over the past years there’s been a clear trend in the redistribution of total wealth. It has become increasingly concentrated at the top, and at an accelerating rate. This has been so independent of the ebb and flow of overall economic activity.
What could be expected as an eventual outcome of that trend, in the absence of any rational redistributive mechanisms?
Those who tend toward a progressive/liberal world view tend to keep that question in mind, and generally seek ways to moderate the tendency to what they see as the overall societal advantage. Those having a conservative world view–which I’m having increasing difficulty defining–often seem to avoid the question entirely.
@Greg
Your right, Greg, we avoid the question of redistribution entirely, and it is necessary to do so in order to maintain some semblance of liberty and freedom in this country. Redistribution entails a mindset that ones labor, rewarded with personal wealth, is not one’s to own, but the collective of society. It is a mindset that is to be rejected at every opportunity, since it will, if embraced entirely, lead to the tyrannical rule of men, with no personal property rights maintained. There is no middle ground here.
I do not own any part of your property, nor am I entitled to it. You don’t own any part of my property, nor are you entitled to it. To think otherwise means you are agreeing to subservience to me, and me to be subservient to you. I don’t live for your sake, and I don’t expect you to live for mine.
As for today’s world and the taxation involved, I am sure that if you ask us, most of us would declare a desire to see ALL of the Bush tax cuts made permanent. No one I know has asked for new rounds of tax cuts for anyone. We fight for the cuts to be made permanent because, as students of history, we know that during times of economic recession or depression, the last thing that should be done is to raise taxes on anyone, something you seem eager to do. And lest we misunderstand one another, allowing any portion of the Bush tax cuts to relax to pre-cut levels is a tax INCREASE.
As I stated, you support that which will do yourself, and the country, the most harm, yet you defend it as if it won’t. History bears out on our side, not yours.