To hear conservatives tell it, you’d think mobs of shiftless welfare moms were marauding through the streets of Greenwich and Palm Springs, lynching bankers and hedge-fund managers, stringing up shopkeepers, and herding lawyers into internment camps. President Obama and his budgeteers, they say, have declared war on the rich.
On Tuesday, Washington Post columnist (and former Bush speechwriter) Michael Gerson argued in an op-ed that “Obama chose a time of recession to propose a massive increase in progressivity—a 10-year, trillion-dollar haul from the rich, already being punished by the stock market collapse and the housing market decline.” The plans are so radical, “there will not be enough wealthy people left to bleed.” CNBC’s Larry Kudlow wrote that “Obama is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.”
[…]
Obama’s proposals don’t mean the government would steal every penny you make above the $250,000 threshold, or that making more than $250,000 would somehow subject all of your income to higher taxes. Rather, you’d pay 36 cents to the government in income taxes on every dollar over the threshold, rather than 33 cents.
[…]
Second, this return to 2001’s tax rates was actually part of the Bush tax plan. […] Third, we know from recent experience that marginal tax rates of 36 percent and 39 percent aren’t wealth killers. […] Fourth, we also know from recent experience that lower marginal rates on income taxes, and lower rates on capital gains and dividends, aren’t necessarily wealth producers.
[…]
What would happen if the marginal rate on the portion of your income above $250,000 were to rise from 33 percent to 36 percent? Under the old regime, you’d pay $16,500 in federal taxes on that amount. Under the new one, you’d pay $18,000. The difference is $1,500 per year, or $4.10 per day. Obviously, the numbers rise as you make more. But is $4.10 a day bleeding the rich, a war on the wealthy, a killer of innovation and enterprise?
The average American hasn’t figured out how screwed he his. It will happen this year, and it will not be pretty. The hate nut balls are already at work. The party is over and the tab is due. You may laugh now at the thought of civil unrest, but there are scared and frustrated people out there, and the ranks are growing. For Gods sakes, GE is what, $6 a share, and GM and Chrysler are dead, they just haven’t rolled over yet. Grain futures are in the toilet, and no one is really lending or borrowing. This is a damn depression, we just have to wait a few years for someone to call it.
#21 – contempt for intelligence,
How about if “Obama The Arrogant” wouldn’t continue preaching doom and gloom which at this point seems designed to grab more power for government than stabilize the markets.
You seem to be missing the point that Obama is rolling back the Bush changes that gave more power to the government. Or, have you not been paying attention?
Here’s how things looked under Bush.
http://tinyurl.com/yo8rdz
Luckily this is being rolled back now by a man who is not the megalomaniac that W was.
Every time El Presidente opens his mouth to read off a teleprompter, the market does another big swoon. I’d call that people recognizing they’re being attacked.
The real BS is saying Barry’s not full of BS.
Wild Bill built the gallows, GW, strung the rope and Barry-O is pulling the lever. We are well and truly screwed.
#51 – Mr. Fusion,
Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, Leading Troll Extraordinaire, and Asstrologist
Forgetting about how correct the rest of your post was (and it was), I just can’t help but state that this had me literally laughing out loud so hard that I had to spell it out rather than use the abbreviation.
#56 – Mr. Fusion,
When you have 40% of the population that pays $0 in taxes and gets to vote on what the other 60% pay, you get what Obama and the left (redundant I know) call “fair.”
Who and where are these 40% of the population?
Some of them are obviously the 0.0001% of the nation that are its top earners with tax shelters in the Caymens and all the other tricks to pay less in total percentage than the rest of us pay in FICA.
#45 Has the best post so far on this thread. It shows what reality is vis-à-vis this situation.
#57, Meyers,
Good post. I don’t totally agree, but you have presented some extremely valid points in a very clean manner.
#64
Well that’s right. And from ’36 to ’81 (45 years) we had a Dow that grew about 850 points. From ’81 to ’08 (27 years) we had growth of 13,000 points and even after this latest decline caused by the banking sector and enhanced by Obama, the increase is 6,000. Which one do you want? Again what is taught in school and accepted by the left is that equality of poverty is fine, disparity of wealth (even if that disparity happens to bring a better standard of living to everyone) is bad. So the market responds in kind.
#65 Misanthropic Scott
>>we came out of it
We came out of the depression only after everyone went back to work because of WWII. Everything Roosevelt did prolonged the agony.
>>Obama’s tax plan only raises taxes on those making over $250K, not overall.
That’s the talking points but stay tuned for the rest of the story. Everyone’s taxes will go up no matter what lies the Obamanation is spewing at this particular moment.
You have noticed that his words, just words are fleeting haven’t you? No I guess not.
#68 – AlgoreIsWorseThanHitler,Godwin’sLawDenier,
Wild Bill built the gallows, GW, strung the rope and Barry-O is pulling the lever. We are well and truly screwed.
You don’t really know your history. This started 28 years ago and has continued through every administration including Clinton’s. It’s been deregulation of everything, reduced taxes on our corporate masters, and reduced taxes on the wealthy for 28 years that brought this on.
Let’s hope Obama rolls some of it back. Remember, before Reagan came on the scene, the top tax rate had been over 70% since 1936, through good times and bad. And, we survived that and even came out of the great depression with those rates.
Let’s hope we can regulate some corporations and make them and their wealthy owners pay a bit in taxes while we’re at it.
I’d prefer to remove income tax completely and tax consumption instead. But, if we’re going to have an income tax, the rich have to pay it.
And, if we’re going to allow corporations to exist (and I do think they should), they must follow the rules. They are not life forms and should not be allowed to lobby or get away with crimes. They are for the purpose of protection from personal bankruptcy, period.
Regulate them within an inch of their lives.
If they want to do business in this largest market in the world (and they do), they will follow the rules.
We just have to take the country back from them.
#74–shittybc==”the market” is NOT SYNONYMOUS with the economy and much less with the standard of living.
In fact, the better argument is that “most of” the stock market is a wealth transfer mechanism from the poor to the rich. It does a little bit of good, and a whole lot of bad.
Rubes.
# 76 Misanthropic Scott said, “I’d prefer to remove income tax completely and tax consumption instead.”
That would be great. Buy a yacht, pay the tax. I’d exempt food & medicine. Maybe, with a well thought out import duty system, we might resurrect some manufacturing jobs too.
#73 – Ivor Biggun,
You lose.
#74 – smittybc,
Well that’s right. And from ‘36 to ‘81 (45 years) we had a Dow that grew about 850 points. From ‘81 to ‘08 (27 years) we had growth of 13,000 points and even after this latest decline caused by the banking sector and enhanced by Obama, the increase is 6,000. Which one do you want?
The former. The latter is indicative of an obvious bubble combined with extremely unsustainable consumerism. The former was indicative of a healthy and growing economy.
Further, I doubt the numbers look like that with the more representative S&P500. Regardless though, a bubble does not an economy make, as we are seeing clearly today.
#75 – contempt for intelligence,
We came out of the depression only after everyone went back to work because of WWII. Everything Roosevelt did prolonged the agony.
And the thirty years of growth afterward, still with high taxes means nothing to you?
It amazes me how many people on this blog are still spouting voodoo Reaganomics when we’re looking at the pathetic and disastrous results.
#73 – Ivor Biggun,
You lose.
#73 – Ivor Biggun,
You lose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
#74 – smittybc,
Well that’s right. And from ‘36 to ‘81 (45 years) we had a Dow that grew about 850 points. From ‘81 to ‘08 (27 years) we had growth of 13,000 points and even after this latest decline caused by the banking sector and enhanced by Obama, the increase is 6,000. Which one do you want?
The former. The latter is indicative of an obvious bubble combined with extremely unsustainable consumerism. The former was indicative of a healthy and growing economy.
Further, I doubt the numbers look like that with the more representative S&P500. Regardless though, a bubble does not an economy make, as we are seeing clearly today.
#75 – contempt for intelligence,
We came out of the depression only after everyone went back to work because of WWII. Everything Roosevelt did prolonged the agony.
And the thirty years of growth afterward, still with high taxes means nothing to you?
It amazes me how many people on this blog are still spouting voodoo Reaganomics when we’re looking at the pathetic and disastrous results.
#74 – smittybc,
Well that’s right. And from ‘36 to ‘81 (45 years) we had a Dow that grew about 850 points. From ‘81 to ‘08 (27 years) we had growth of 13,000 points and even after this latest decline caused by the banking sector and enhanced by Obama, the increase is 6,000. Which one do you want?
The former. The latter is indicative of an obvious bubble combined with extremely unsustainable consumerism. The former was indicative of a healthy and growing economy.
Further, I doubt the numbers look like that with the more representative S&P500. Regardless though, a bubble does not an economy make, as we are seeing clearly today.
#75 – contempt for intelligence,
We came out of the depression only after everyone went back to work because of WWII. Everything Roosevelt did prolonged the agony.
And the thirty years of growth afterward, still with high taxes means nothing to you?
It amazes me how many people on this blog are still spouting voodoo Reaganomics when we’re looking at the pathetic and disastrous results.
#78 – Paddy-O,
# 76 Misanthropic Scott said, “I’d prefer to remove income tax completely and tax consumption instead.”
That would be great. Buy a yacht, pay the tax. I’d exempt food & medicine. Maybe, with a well thought out import duty system, we might resurrect some manufacturing jobs too.
Holy crap!! We agree on something. Yes. Tax luxury goods more heavily. Don’t tax necessities at all. Though, I’m betting we disagree on some necessities.
Tax that which has real and tangible costs to society, such as smoking, carbon, etc. Give some rebates to those far less fortunate who still will require gasoline for a while, but still, the costs must be paid at the pump.
Oh yeah!! Get rid of externalities.
Implement deep accounting principles. Ditch the GDP as our primary economic indicator, since it is indicative of nothing. Replace it with the Genuine Progress Indicator, unless there’s something even better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator
# 83 Misanthropic Scott said, “I’m betting we disagree on some necessities.”
Probably not much. Sin taxes are okay, just don’t count on the revenue long term. People tend to get the message and cut back or stop. Cig tax is a good example in CA.
#80 Misanthropic Scott
>>And the thirty years of growth afterward, still with high taxes means nothing to you?
I gotta ask – Why are you so intent in serving government like a slave would a master? You do understand that excessive taxation is the same thing only under a different title?
You work then they take your money…
#82–contempt for education beyond the third grade==where do the profits come from to “pay” stockholders?
Thats right==out of the pockets of the true engine of wealth, THE WORKER.
Capital formation is necessary to start/expand certain businesses but it is a CAPITALIST LIE to think it has to continue past pay back in the form of stock ownership.
Everything you were fed as a kid rotted your mind as well as your teeth.
Imagine==workers being paid for working rather than investors getting the money for manipulations.
A whole different world!
#86 – Paddy-O,
Sin taxes are okay, just don’t count on the revenue long term. People tend to get the message and cut back or stop. Cig tax is a good example in CA.
That’s OK. The idea of the sin tax is to pay for the cost of the sin. As cigarette use goes down, we have less need of the medical care that was covered by the tax.
I believe that in the case of sin taxes, the money should be earmarked for the cost of providing the services required to counter the sin, plus for putting up public service announcements to alert people to the danger.
BTW, I feel the same way about all mind altering drugs from marijuana to alcohol to heroine and all the rest. Legalize them and tax them. DO NOT ALLOW ADVERTISING!! Use the taxes for public service announcements, rehabilitation programs, and medical costs.
I do not believe in victimless crime.
Think about it. We might end up in a society that didn’t have fully 1% of the population behind bars.
Prostitution is a much better ongoing source of revenue. Once it’s regulated to prevent disease and taxed (sales tax) as the ordinary service industry that it is, we can count on a lot of revenue from that. We just have to be careful not to actually have the government promoting the idea (e.g. requiring those on unemployment to take such jobs).
#87 – contempt,
I gotta ask – Why are you so intent in serving government like a slave would a master?
Now that is a different question. I’m not necessarily advocating a top tax rate of 70%. I’m merely presenting the fact that we have had that for generations as evidence that it does not cripple the economy nor does it remove the profit incentive.
50% may be enough for the top bracket.
I’m a firm believer in a progressive taxation system, whether by sales tax (preferred) or income tax (barely acceptable). I do not mind that I pay quite high taxes. What bothers me is that people making far more than I do (those above the “f___ you” upper middle class income level) pay far less in percentage than I do, and sometimes possibly even less in real dollars.
For example, when H. Ross Perot (multi-billionaire) ran for president, they analyzed his taxes. Under the existing plan, he had paid a total of 6.8% combined state and federal tax. Under his proposed plan, he would have dropped to 6.4%, which would have made him the highest paid president in history.
I have a huge problem with that.
So, I don’t mind paying taxes. (“Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) I just want people who make more to pay more.
#89–Scott==”I do not believe in victimless crime.” /// Thats ambiguous. What don’t you believe in==no victims or no crimes?
Seems to me these issues are all definitional. Once an activity is not a crime, why “exactly” should it not be promoted?
Why shouldn’t poor people, or sexually interested people be encouraged to enter the safe, legal, and profitable business of prostitution? What hangovers do you think will continue into an age of enlightenment?
Same with marijuana. Why not encourage it over more injurious chemicals or even “mindsets?” Which is worse for the body/psyche==religion or MJ. Things could easily get so bad, we may find out?
#89 You’re right. If the $ are spent correctly it can be a good deal for the tax payer. Hard drugs might be problematic. Amsterdam is having to deal with that problem right now. I don’t know if it was because of how they “legalized” stuff though. If people (not minors) want to use they must be kept off the roads, so to speak… Same as drinking & driving.
#88 bobbo
>>out of the pockets of the true engine of wealth, THE WORKER.
I was under the impression that the workers are paid a salary for their labor. True the government steals a large percentage of it in various taxes but there is pay for work.
Why don’t you complain about the government’s take? I mean they aren’t even the ones supply the job in the first place?
Misnomered Scott:
You’re funny. Where was the comparison? I was simply stating history. Are you denying that WWII had an effect on the US Economy? You’re an idiot.
Tax 15% across the board. No more, no less
#96 bobbo
>>I’m actually not “for” or “against” most things==just understanding how those things actually work.
Sorry, but I’ve read your work and it conflicts with this statement.
Not a good argument – x can never equal y on a blog unless you want to write page after page no one will ever read.
70% taxation on anyone is cruel and unusual punishment.
The only fair thing to do is earn as much money as you can in the underground economy and Obomba to piss off.
I have worked for people who did almost everything in cash and didn’t taxes on any of it.
Yeah, I know it isn’t right but the sheeple are getting restless.