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?
#115 – bobbo,
Equating sex to rape. Just how catholic “were you?”
Not at all. Sorry to disappoint you. I guess you could say I was born as Catholic as Jesus, if that matters and if Jesus ever really existed.
Really a hang up there. I can see “feeling that” initially, but actually writing it down? Whew!! By direct application, then any other non-sexual work is actually bonded slavery?
I think you missed my point. Someone who decides to become a prostitute is not raped. Someone who is forced by an unemployment office to become a prostitute or lose unemployment insurance is at least harassed, if not raped.
I have it on good report that some men and women actually like sex. The whole point of “a free market” is that everyone is variously motivated and that motivation changes from time to time and is always a combination.
Duh. Of course. I was merely considering the possibility where it is not a free choice.
Reminds me of an old joke: You don’t pay a prostitute for sex. You pay her to leave.
LOL!! Good one. But, I think it’s merely a joke. In reality, the prostitute wants money for sex because the guy is fat, smells bad, and can’t find the clitoris to save his life. Else, he wouldn’t need to pay. Of course, for male prostitutes, the reasons may be different. We’ll have to ask Ted Buggard and his prostitute for their opinions on the subject.
Your analysis fails from the same catholic guilt when applied to drugs vs religion. Why are drugs at all evil? Jerry Garcia or Dr. Feelgood said only people who needed mental health services couldn’t stand a good trip. Open the doors of your perceptions. Good for some, bad for others.
Drugs are not evil. Many do, however, cause health problems, or at least many do. For those that do, if we ever have socialized medicine, there will be a cost borne by the government. Until then, there is still a cost borne by society as a whole. For those drugs that cause more good than harm, your argument may be valid.
Even the notion of cumulative body harm is not the best of anti reasons. Football players, mine workers, day care attendants all “spend” their bodies to make a living. We all choose our own poison.
Hmm… Good point. We should tax football.
Seriously, time for more soul searching, so to speak.
#132 – Paddy-O,
Scott, I did post a while back what I found last year in the IRS site. The bitch about that site and census.gov is that they constantly move historic data around. It’s not on the same pages year to year or sometimes month to month. Wish they get decent web staff…
No link I’ve ever seen from the government got more fine grained than the top one percent. If you have such a link, post it. If not, all we have to go on is the top one percent at $388K/yr. This is definitely not wealthy enough for tax shelters.
# 134 Misanthropic Scott said, “No link I’ve ever seen from the government got more fine grained than the top one percent. If you have such a link, post it.”
What I posted was all I could find at the time. 🙁
Scott, Just found this.
It has tables that go up to ~$1,000,000
#139 – Paddy-O,
Yes. I remember. And when I searched for your numbers all I found was extremist neocon blogs, not the actual source. So, I am still taking that with a grain of salt. I’m not calling you a liar. I’m merely not ready to believe the data until I see it in a reputable source.
#140 – Paddy-O,
Getting closer. $1M/yr is worth talking about, but still not really tax shelter rich. I’ll keep searching too and let you know if I find anything.
#129
My definition of control in this instance is government enforcing maximal rule sets (ie what is allowed in a society and everything beyond what is defined by government is not allowed) vs government enforcing minimal rule sets (ie one must meet a minimum set of requirements and everything beyond that is worked out between individuals). Maximal enforcement = totalitarianism; Minimal enforcement= classical liberalism; No enforcement = anarchy.
So if government is confiscating 75% of income, then their ability to enforce rule sets is going to be very well defined and well/easily enforced (assumes government has complete control of security). If government is taking 15% of income then it becomes very difficult to enforce maximal rule sets and government has to accept enforcing minimal rule sets. The more government takes capital and resources and attempts to distribute it, the more rules they have to enforce, the less individual freedom exists. So I would like to see a flat tax around 10-15% and strict guidelines for what constitutes income.
That it Republicans, suck up the Limbaugh cool-aid, just like the rich folks want you to. Drink deep of that heady broth while you line his pockets with gold and watch him turn the party in to a bunch of gutless sheep. Convince yourself that McCain would be doing *anything* different to Obama. Tremble as you imagine the foosteps of communism approching. Thats it, drink deeply.
I’l say it again: “Eat the RICH!!! Then we all will be poor!!!”
#64, smitty,
#56
Well sadly like most on the left you don’t understand the tax code so of course raising taxes is not a problem for you. What your daughter paid was a sales tax implemented by the state.
Hhmmm, what part of this are you having a difficult time with? The kid paid a tax. Ok? She doesn’t get any say in how that tax is spent.
Next week we plan on driving through Chicago to see her cousin. We’ll pay another tax to drive on the road. The gasoline I buy to get there will have another tax on it. If I stop at a service center, I will pay a premium on everything as there is another tax hidden in the goods and services. Did you notice that word TAX?
So please, as I asked before, where and who are these 40% that do not pay taxes?
Just a reminder, it was YOU that wrote in #38,
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.”
#117, 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 Extraordinare, Asstrologist, and President of the “I Hate America Club”
# 107 RTaylor said, “What kind of asshole wants to see his countries leaders fail and it’s people suffer for years.”
I see you’ve bought into the corrupt media.
If Bush wanted to start a nuc war, would you want him to fail in that?
Get an IQ. I didn’t want Bush to succeed in going to war on Iraq, so yes, I wanted him to fail in that endeavor.
Bad argument. RTaylor brought up that your hero wants our President to fail so we all suffer. Now, that wouldn’t hurt him. He has enough money he won’t hurt. Instead of addressing question though you invent some bullshit scenario as a cover and expect us to all go along with that.
Face it, the right wing nuts lost the election. All they can do is moan and groan about how to make the economy worse by continuing with failed policies than have screwed America big time. The ONLY economic plan the Republicans have is “cut taxes”.
If companies fail so what? Big deal, that is the way survival works. Only, these are people’s lives we are talking about. The very same people that made this country what it was before the right wing nuts screwed it up.
The right wing nuts are morally bankrupt and never had any common sense to begin with.
You wanted Bush to fail in Iraq? Bullshit. That would have meant the wholesale loss of American lives. You effen ignorant son of a bitch.
I love it when people say things like tax the oil companies.
Go ahead and tax them a thousand percent. They will hand the tax directly to the people who show up at the pump. You might as well vote to put a tax on gas and be done with it. In fact it most likely would be smarter.
You can’t tax businesses without taxing the buyers and you are also making it more profitable to put American business off shore and just ship in product which means fewer jobs state side. That’s why I said a sales tax would actually be less regressive on businesses and job state side.
These taxes on American businesses one poster suggested will of course help other nations. They will delay our recovery.
For this year and maybe a few years to come the rich are going to have some major tax write offs because most of them have lost money.
This is perhaps the most amazing political phenomenon in history!
Look at the millions of people who aren’t rich queuing up to protest moves to stop them from being screwed by the rich!
Well admins, if there is ever an example of switching this site to a threaded format (vs current flat), this is it. This damned thing is impossible to read.
And as an aside, I just finished re-reading “Atlas Shrugged”. Considering the current political climate, it scared the sh** out of me. Recommended for everyone to read, even though Rand had a horrible love of writing looooong speeches. An unabridged audio version would be much easier to comprehend.
#148 – deowll,
I love it when people say things like tax the oil companies.
Go ahead and tax them a thousand percent. They will hand the tax directly to the people who show up at the pump. You might as well vote to put a tax on gas and be done with it. In fact it most likely would be smarter.
If we don’t tax it, however, they still charge whatever they can at the pump. Then they give the money to Chavez, the house of Saud, and all of our other friends.
Yes. We can and must tax oil.
It’s the only way that we the idiots will ever realize we need to burn less of the foul crap. Look what happened when the price hit $4. People stopped buying SUVs, drove less, took public transport, all the right things.
It’s much better than funding terrorists and causing severe global warming.
Misinformed Scott said:
>>No. Are you denying that the economy continued to do wonderfully with high taxes for 30 years after?
Yes it did because we were manufacturing goods for the rest of the world which was in shambles after 4+ years of being bombed out. The Post WWII economy had numerous recessions (1953, 1957, 1960) which were accompanied by high inflation, too. Kennedy cut taxes and we didn’t have another recession until the arabs (geez you got a wiki page for THAT??) shut off the oil in 1973…
Guys, you’ll never convince the Kool-Aid drinkers. After all, all taxes are theft, you know. And all evil that has ever happened in the history of the universe was caused by liberals.
The Serpent in the Garden? Liberal.
The rats & fleas that spread the Black Death? Liberals.
Buckner in the ’86 World Series? Liberal.
Hurricane Katrina? Liberal.
Just wait ’til we return to the WWII tax rates and tax every cent of income (including interest, dividends, inheritances and gifts) at 70% to 90%! THEN they’ll know what pain is!!! (Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!)
# 152 soundwash predicts:
[…]” a major social & economic collapse, -ugly as they are.
-rumourmill says 90 days..” […]
Okay, let’s all mark our calendars for the first week in June and check back here then. Actually, by then I plan to be riding the Cathouse Train from Disneyland, on which all the best-paying jobs will go to Pelosi’s Mice! I’ll be able to afford it because I plan to run ACORN’s $41 Billion tattoo removal/voter registration/Community Reinvestment Act-guaranteed mortgage service.
Let’s take a look at the record and see what the rich did with those “Bush tax cuts” over the past 8 years:
The Republicans removed all regulation over banking, securities, housing lending, hedge funds, etc.
The “rich” who own the factories and plants in the US closed nearly all of them and moved everything to Mexico, India, etc, causing the US to lose millions of jobs.
The “rich” moved all that extra money off-shore where the US can’t get at it to collect the taxes they do own on that extra money.
The “rich” dumped money into the hedge funds and and lending institutions who were no longer subject to any regulation and were issuing bets to each other (credit default swaps) on whether the markets were going to go up or down. (You made money either way)
The “rich” invested in hedge funds that cornered the market on oil after it was moved to open market trading, causing the price to go to astronomical levels even as demand was going down and supply was going up, which helped kill the economy when regular people said “Enough!” and stopped buying gas-guzzling cars since the Big 3 weren’t making anything that got decent mileage.
Yes, the rich did some real good with all that money they got from the Bush tax cuts, they got us into this pickle and now they need to help get us out!
I am flabbergasted some people can’t understand that this crisis is the result of both parties. Even BHO admits the CRA didn’t work because of the unintended consequences (those unintended consequences being greedy people taking advantage of it).
Subprime lending started off as a good idea – helping Americans buy homes who couldn’t previously afford to.
BHO, 2007
This problem started LONG before Bush took office. It is every administration’s and congress’ fault from the Nixon years forward.
If the Obamessiah knows it didn’t work, why doesn’t the rest of his cult? Are they so desperate to believe they’ll latch onto the first person to preach hope that comes along? That is the only thing that makes sense to me. Any intelligent person can see he’s already proven to be just like the last one — wanting more government power over the lives of states’ citizens and that he’s just another shyster with too many favors to repay.
What are the Unintended Consequences for printing $3T out of thin air with nothing to back it going to be? Government cannot be efficient because efficiency would mean it wasn’t needed anymore.
#153 – Ivor Biggun,
>>No. Are you denying that the economy continued to do wonderfully with high taxes for 30 years after?
Yes it did because we were manufacturing goods for the rest of the world which was in shambles after 4+ years of being bombed out. The Post WWII economy had numerous recessions (1953, 1957, 1960) which were accompanied by high inflation, too. Kennedy cut taxes and we didn’t have another recession until the arabs (geez you got a wiki page for THAT??) shut off the oil in 1973…
So, Kennedy cut taxes and that stopped a recession. OK. So, clearly, you are arguing that any tax cut is good and the top rate doesn’t matter at all, right?
How does that work exactly?
Kennedy cut the top tax bracket from 91% to 77%. That stopped a recession somehow in your warped brain.
Now, get this, if we increase taxes to even 36%, that will cause a recession. I don’t get it. 77% kept us out of a recession and 36% will put us into one.
Clearly you are arguing for a 77% tax rate, right?
You really do make no sense at all. If 77% was able to keep us out of a recession once, I have no idea how 36% is going to cause one now, unless you are arguing that 77% is the sweet spot and we need to have our top tax bracket exactly there.
You neocons really know how to rationalize, I’ll tell you.
They must teach all of the best self-justification, anti-cognitive-dissonance techniques available over in neocon school. Did they also teach that it couldn’t possibly have been 28 years of deregulation and trickle-down voodoonomics that caused this but that all of our current problems were caused by Obama’s first 5 minutes in office, even though they began months before the election?
# 151 Misanthropic Scott said, “If we don’t tax it, however, they still charge whatever they can at the pump. Then they give the money to Chavez, the house of Saud, and all of our other friends.”
I think they charge what they can get away with but at the same time keeping on eye on their competitors price. So, it would be a major impact directly on the consumer. Also, energy is the life blood of an industrialized econ. If the prices jump, the econ will stall further.
Twenty states are now passing TARs (Tenth Amendment Resolutions).
http://tinyurl.com/cy8vmo
Big federal government is not what states want. Keep spending our money, Washington, and find out what happens.
Its debatable and subject to definition which never happens, but “on average” I believe there is more fraud, waste, corruption, and yes==lack of FREEDOM== at the state level than at the Federal Level.
Breaking up the USA=worst idea in the world. Figures LIEBERTARIANS would be all for it. These retards are hoping next for County Autonomy, then by City, then Neighborhood, then there very own little house where they reign supreme.
What a bunch of goof balls.
#157, Loser,
Even BHO admits the CRA didn’t work because of the unintended consequences (those unintended consequences being greedy people taking advantage of it).
Subprime lending started off as a good idea – helping Americans buy homes who couldn’t previously afford to.
The CRA were not “Sub-Prime” mortgages. They were and are intended to force banks to lend the money they hold in poor areas to make loans in that same area if they would have made a similar condition loan to someone else in a different area. The CRA stopped banks from discriminating against blacks.
This problem started LONG before Bush took office. It is every administration’s and congress’ fault from the Nixon years forward.
If you are still referring to the CRA, it came into being during Carter. The Civil Rights Act came into being during the Johnson Administration. Regardless, the problem came to be during the Bush Administration and they failed to respond. Thus, they get the blame.
#78 – Yes I’m well aware the problem really started way back with Jimmy Peanut. It’s just that the true enabling kicked in with Wild Bill.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you about FairTax. I’ve been on the fence a long time over either a flat tax with no exemptions for anything or a consumption tax. The only weakness with a consumption tax I see is how to make sure it’s always collected and a “tax free” black market doesn’t spring up.
Hell I’d even tax food. Cheap food is still cheap. Luxury food will cost more, hence there’s an implicit luxury tax on it. If you tax everything, no one can argue and no games can be played.
#163, Poison Twin
Even BHO admits the CRA didn’t work because of the unintended consequences (those unintended consequences being greedy people taking advantage of it).
Subprime lending started off as a good idea – helping Americans buy homes who couldn’t previously afford to.
The CRA were not “Sub-Prime” mortgages. They were and are intended to force banks to lend the money they hold in poor areas to make loans in that same area if they would have made a similar condition loan to someone else in a different area. The CRA stopped banks from discriminating against blacks.
And I agree with you on the purpose of it.
The “unintended consequence” was sub-prime mortgages because the banks were afraid to reject someone who was “risky.” ACORN and their ilk “forced” mortgages (which the banking community would be considered sub-prime) on the banks by threatening legal action.
You still haven’t answered my question as to whether it is cheaper to give the loan and let the FMs deal with it or fight it in court?
This problem started LONG before Bush took office. It is every administration’s and congress’ fault from the Nixon years forward.
If you are still referring to the CRA, it came into being during Carter. The Civil Rights Act came into being during the Johnson Administration. Regardless, the problem came to be during the Bush Administration and they failed to respond. Thus, they get the blame.
I know when those started. I was referring to what Nixon did to the dollar.
Obama in a debate sad that he would raise taxes even if it made the government less revenue, as a matter of fairness. So yes it’s a war on the wealthy. Plus his stimulus package reversed Clinton’s welfare reform, so we are seeing a return of welfare queens.
#165–Loser==haw, haw!!! Ok, you are talking about Nixon, but what about the fish crawling out of the ocean??????
You see, no one is responsible when:
1. Everyone is responsible, or
2. You start back with nascent rather than current/immediate causation.
Now, people that do that are either stupid, or fixated on some philosophy they want to sell.
LIEBERTARIANS===goof balls on a mission. Haw, haw.
#161, Loser,
Twenty states are now passing TARs (Tenth Amendment Resolutions).
Not quite. From your own link,
Don’t look for the Federal Government to back off. The States didn’t get line item veto with the Stimulus. They either accept what they are given, or, theoretically, explain to their citizens why they didn’t get any bailout at all.
It seems to me that Leibertarians aren’t brightest people in the world. They might be very selfish, but not too bright.
# 166 MikeN said, “Obama in a debate sad that he would raise taxes even if it made the government less revenue, as a matter of fairness.”
I remember that during the campaign. It was a psychotic idea. Thanks for reminding me.