I Hope One Day To Pay The Higher Taxes Associated With The Kind Of Person Who Owns A Home Like This
Conservative republican efforts to whip up sympathy for the uber-rich is always funny. Look, the vast majority of us work hard and would love to have the burden of being in the tax bracket of folks like Paris Hilton and Rush Limbaugh, but none of us who are sane remotely feel like we need to have a telethon for Marie Antoinette.
The only “soaking of the rich” will be done in that swimming pool.
The ultra-wealthy have every right — nay, a duty — to move themselves and their vast incomes to Somalia where they will no longer have to pay taxes for wasteful Socialist things like police, roads, hospitals, and universities.
Amazing how you guys demonize the people you say you hope to be like someday.
Amazing how you guys demonize the people you say you hope to be like someday.
Nobody’s demonizing the rich, Dennis, we’re demonizing selfish pig-bastards who, after decades of tax policy in their favor scream bloody murder at a surtax of less than 1%. There are lots of rich people who do not fit that description.
No telethon needed for Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke to stuff the pockets of Goldman Sach’s with taxpayer dough.
Conservatives who don’t think lower income Americans pay enough of a share in federal income taxes then need to start blaming that radical Marxist Ronald Reagan and his Earned Income Tax Credit for lifting the burden of paying for the federal government off the backs of its lowest earning workers.
As the Reagan-adoring Heritage Foundation wrote at the time:
This was at the same time that Reagan pushed through the largest corporate tax hike ever, in 1986, by closing business loopholes.
In contrast to the laughably absurd notion of an upper class shuddering under its unfair tax burden, there’s some reality:
Poor babies. How can they ever feel a part of American society again. Also, Laffer curve.
70 years ago, many of the richest and most influential of the corporate upper classes and multi-generational super-wealthy recognized that this unbalanced distribution of national income would lead to problems not just for the general population, but for them as well.
For this ‘englightened’ self-interest, it was that corporate leaders began pushing in the 1920s for federal pension reform which led to the Social Security Act of 1935, which is now, strangely enough, portrayed as some left-liberal-labor plot.
Die, strawman, die, die, die!
Read “The Millionaire Next Door” and “The Millionaire Mind” by Thomas Stanley.
Learn that 90% of millionaires in America are first-generation wealthy. And that they got their wealth, miracle of miracles, by working for it instead of whining about it.
Then continue to come back and peddle your Paris Hilton/Rush Limbaugh uber-rich horseshit, and look even more like a pinhead than you do today, if that’s possible.
I’ve been suggesting to Jaim to read those two enlightening books for some time now, matt621, to no avail. The first one goes into a lot of detail about how kids given the privileged upbringing tend to rely on their parents throughout adulthood, as long as their parents are still there to provide it for them. And some amazing statistics showing how education is important, but not the positive indicator of wealth accumulation to the extent one would’ve previously assumed. Quite eye-opening.
Libeals tend not to read these kinds of books, since there’s always the ambitious liberal journalist or blogger with far too much time on his hands who will deconstruct every chapter and verse and summarize it for them by calling it hogwash, who will then proudly declare, “I read these books so you don’t have to!”
Millionaires are not the real super-rich. A bunch of insta-mansion dorks are not the ones who have driven policies for a generation. Some putz with a successful small business might relatively seem to be a local titan, but they’re jokes compared to the real wealthy of this country.
Learn that 90% of millionaires in America are first-generation wealthy. And that they got their wealth, miracle of miracles, by working for it instead of whining about it.
So you’re in favor of the Estate Tax, then, I take it?
Rush Limbaugh, Paris Hilton, Marie Antoinette and some picture of a Jed Clampett cement pond….. Democrats, talking about important things of serious significance.
In which liberals can never honestly debate the fact that America has the most progressive tax system among OECD nations.
Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%
Scott Hodge
Tax Foundation
…..Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.
We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation’s tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.
Amazing how you guys demonize the people you say you hope to be like someday.
Amazing how you guys prop up the people who could give two shits about you.
Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%
Scott Hodge
Tax Foundation
Oh, boo fucking hoo, Dennis. Cry me a river. Tell me why you care.
On second thought, don’t.
And it’s amazing to me, as you’ve made perfectly clear how you feel, that you think continuing to soak the rich is the answer to all this nation’s problems. You stated you didn’t care one iota about doing away with every insurance company worker in the country….”fuck them” was your exact quote, Duros.
Disagreeing with your “fuck them” attitude that you share with the wealthy of this country doesn’t mean I am necessarily sympathetic to their woes, it just means I don’t think your way is the answer. Soaking the rich is always your answer, and any honest counter to that strategy is always met by this kind of response… Rush Limbaugh, Paris Hilton, Marie Antoinette and a picture of a swimming pool.
Working hard is important. Making a lot of money by doing so is great. The issue is that some members of the upper class (let’s call them Rand-tards) think that a functional civil society has nothing to do with what allowed them to become wealthy.
We’ve covered this ground before, but it’s funny to see that there are those who still think a person can become ultra-wealthy based simply on their own hard work without a thought to infrastructural necessities like police, roads, schools, and hospitals. If you make a lot of money, but someone murders you and takes it all, you aren’t rich. If you sell an awesome product, but there aren’t roads to your store, you aren’t rich. If you sell a high-end product, but people are too dumb to achieve in school and make enough money to but it, you aren’t rich.
But we can put it even more bluntly and ask Americans, under which president did you make more money (through wages or through investments) — Bush or Clinton? Aside from defense contractors, it’s clear that in recent history the economy doesn’t really like having a Republican in charge.
“continuing to soak the rich”
By restoring the top tax bracket to what it was during the 1990’s, when Americans from all economic levels were doing a hell of a lot better in general?
Yes, this is just the same as taking Marie Antoinette and cutting off her head. Exactly the same.
Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%
Wow… umm… good job there, Dennis. Linking to that blog post from the Tax Foundation. To refute the original post, which is about how… that same blog post from the Tax Foundation is flawed.
I’m sorry, you were saying something about how much it pained you when people didn’t read stuff.
You stated you didn’t care one iota about doing away with every insurance company worker in the country….”fuck them” was your exact quote, Duros.
A statement I stand behind. Every single health insurance worker is an accessory to organized crime.
Disagreeing with your “fuck them” attitude that you share with the wealthy of this country doesn’t mean I am necessarily sympathetic to their woes,
So you agree that I and the rich share the same attitude?
Soaking the rich is always your answer, and any honest counter to that strategy is always met by this kind of response
It is when they bitch.
You’ll notice I have nothing bad to say about Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.
If you think I wouldn’t like to see some “Trading Places” type misfortune befall Spencer Pratt or the entire cast of the OC, you’re nuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States
There are actually about 4 tiers of wealth in this country. The lowest tier is the 250k+/year level, about 1.5% of the population. The next tier is the 1.5 million/year level, about 0.1 percent of the population. The 3rd tier is the 5 million/year level, which is roughly 0.01 percent of the population. The top tier is the richest 400 people, who average about 85 million/year in income. Obviously there is a big difference between 250,000 and 5,000,000, and a vast difference between 250,000 and 85,000,000. People making 250,000 a year may have some other significant debt obligations (student loans, a new mortgage, a car loan, malpractice premiums if they’re a doctor, possibly investment costs if they’re small businesspersons, etc.) which limit them to a lifestyle substantially less luxurious than one might imagine. But folks making 5 million or more a year are generally living the high life, and can probably afford to pay a higher level of tax (they can also probably afford top flight accountants to find ways to shelter some of their income, too).
Good catch there, Pollack; somewhat so, anyway. I’ve always maintained that to be a good comic you need a sharp wit, I just didn’t want to see you go the way of your nutcase mentor like it appears you’re heading the way of, sadly.
Oliver didn’t name that blog post, and neither did the guy that he linked to. But I admit when I first saw ‘Left in the West’ and ‘Views From Dry Land Democrats’, I didn’t give it the close scrutiny that I’m sure you did, that it richly deserved.
Shorter Dennis: whoops, I was completely wrong, but you’re a poopyhead.
Indeed –
Sure, I’m in favor of the Estate Tax. Because I’m more in favor of these:
1. Making a whole bunch of money, living well, and giving great big piles of it to worthy causes.
2. Teaching my children the character-building value of finding and doing work that they love.
3. Leaving my children, in Warren Buffett’s words, “enough money so that they can do anything, but not enough so that they can do nothing.”
If I do all those things, the Estate Tax means nothing to me.
Shorter Pollack: Dennis gave me a compliment in his own back-handed way, which is not bad considering I’m obsessed with catching him at anything I can think of, but it’s still not good enough for me. No, I must not accept it, I must soldier on.
Does anyone else know what Dennis is talking about now? I think he’s desperately trying to insult me for pointing out that he was wrong. Does this make sense?
Four words regarding Democrats and economic policy.
Cash For Clunkers Program
Last I heard, not very many people making under 250K a year had a whole bunch of employees.
Now, me, with the last tax cut my income taxes went down quite substantially, and that (coupled with the incentive of rising gas prices) ended up making the difference between living in an apartment and driving an hour each way every day to work (to say nothing of the carbon footprint THAT caused), and buying my OWN house, and living only 5 minutes from work.
Not to mention the fact that the university branch campus where I work almost totally relies on working students, whose continuing education is almost always PAID FOR by their employers… which means our job security is heightened when those employers have more money to put towards said educations.
I actually understand both mathematics and economics, which is why I also didn’t fall for the whole subprime, variable-interest-rate garbage when I bought the aforementioned house. I acted responsibly and bought a smaller house I could still afford if things went south, which they inevitably do – that’s life.
Of course, that understanding is also what leads me to snicker everytime I hear someone complain that 15 million people (less than 5%) have control of 95% of the money, and this is BAD, and the SOLUTION is to give control of 100% of the money to .00015% of the population, and that’s somehow BETTER.
Because the 535 people in the houses of Congress are somehow better and smarter than the other 15 million, by virtue of… well, they usually lose me there.
Four numbers regarding Democrats and economic policy:
DOW 9200
And according to Dennis, Obama deserves every ounce of credit for restoring the markets and helping to end the Bush Recession.
Our president thanks you for your continued support and economic genius, little Dennis.
Dennis seems to have far too much time on his hands for somebody with a lucrative corporate finance job, perfect life, perfect wife and kids, etc.., IMHO.
I’ve personally witnessed how most people make it big. And then you have these ‘Icons of American innovative greatness’. Some are like Conrad Hilton, who didn’t seem like such a bad guy, although his grandchildren are spoiled nitwits. But try researching Bill Gates, Walt Disney, Andrew Carnegie, Frank Lloyd Wright, Joseph Kennedy, Thomas Edison… ignore the authorized biographies but find the real story.
You’ll find that America richly rewards the ruthless manipulative image building / competition destroying genius while punishing the true innovative wizard who doesn’t understand human politics.
If freedom and liberty is wholly dependant on checks and balances as the founding fathers forsaw, then I’d much rather see the wealthiest get taxed than I. At least I spend my time on the job doing the job and not screwing over my competition.
Far from perfect, freD. If you have time to look people up here and then Google Earth their place of residences and what happens to be nearby so that you can belittle them, then you’ve got far too much time on your hands too. Not to mention a problem…, IMHO.
Amusingly enough, at least a couple of the men on FreD’s list (and a few more he didn’t list) depended on federal subsidies and grants to grow their fortunes early on. True paragons of unfettered markets.
Four words regarding Democrats and economic policy. Cash For Clunkers Program.
Would you care to expand on this, Dennis?
I find it especially entertaining when Beck goes the poor-poor-rich-people route, because he’s tried to position himself as some sort of angry populist voice.
Dennis,
You missed my point, dumbass.
What August said. The blog I linked to specifically ridiculed the nonsense “research” you posted. As I made clear, nothing is wrong with making – I want to make gigantic piles of money, personally – and at the same time nothing is wrong with paying a tax on that. Somehow the folks in the books you cited (and I have read at least a bit of both, as well as other books about wealth in America – this one is really good) were able to make their millions in some circumstances under our previous tax policies. Which debunks the “oh noes nobody gonna be rich
nonsense.
Dennis,
I’m on holiday the next few days. Go over that thread again, if you have the guts. Just so there’s no misunderstanding (LOL), I’ll spell it out so that even you can understand:
1. I linked to his FDS myspace page. (which he published right here)
2. I typed his name and location in Zaba. (which is a popular website)
3. I DID NOT publish any personal information.
This took me all of 15 seconds.
My point, Michelle Malkin has and continues to give out personal information of her targets. She actively researches names, phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, and publishes them on her popular website for all to see. After these people have received death threats from numerous psychos, she refuses to take this personal information off her website.
MM is loathed not because she is a popular conservative activist, but because she’s a mean bitch.
Capiche?
Do any of you honestly believe that if the rich were to keep ALL their money, it would somehow affect you negatively?
Where would you rather set up a business? In a rich neighborhood or a poor one?
Where would you rather live? In a rich neighborhood or a poor one?
Why? Because the rich are better? No, it’s because they have money, and they spend it.
Rich people spending money is good.
The government spending money — not so good.
And rich people inadvertently do good things with their money – like buy pool supplies and hire pool boys.
The government inadvertently does bad things with their money – like prevent lumber production because of owls, and oil production because of caribou.
In say, “YaY, rich!” And I’ll never be rich …
“I’m obsessed with catching him at anything I can think of …”
This routine is getting a little tired, don’t you think, Dennis?
and at the same time nothing is wrong with paying a tax on that.
What *IS* wrong, as the graph you so petulantly dismiss shows, is when they’re the only one’s paying taxes. The bottom 95% don’t care about increasing spending because, hey, it ain’t costing them anything! We’ll just continue to bleed that turnip knowing the supply will be endless…
Rich people also buy more foreign products, thereby increasing our trade deficits. Rich people consume less as a proportion of their income and save more, meaning that money given to them is less likely to be put fully back into the marketplace. Poor people and the middle class are more likely to take any money received and put it right back into circulation. So the best form of short term economic stimulus is one that funnels money and work to the poor and middle class.
Rich people also tend to want to do things to preserve their socioeconomic status for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, leveraging their wealth to maximize the competitive advantages available to their offspring. This tends to hinder social mobility for the less-rich and the not-rich, and promotes a degree of stagnation.
In Vancouver Canada, there’s the story of a woman from Hong Kong who appeared disinterested in all of the many homes her realtor was showing her. The realtor finally asked her: “Did any of these houses appeal to you at all?” She blandly replied: “Yes. I’ll take all of them.”
Today I tell the amazed children stories about when Vancouver was a blue collar town with affordable housing, before the wealthy real estate speculators multiplied property values within a few short years.
What *IS* wrong, as the graph you so petulantly dismiss shows, is when they’re the only one’s paying taxes.
Jesus Christ, read the link you idiot.
Where would you rather set up a business? In a rich neighborhood or a poor one?
I suppose it would depend on the business. A Lamborghini dealership in South Central might not be too successful. Just like I’m sure there aren’t too many BK’s in Beverly Hills.
Just like I’m sure there aren’t too many BK’s in Beverly Hills.
Looks like one.
That’s not even in Beverly Hills proper, is it?
Democrats demonize “the rich” (also known as people who work for a living, apparently)..the very people who pay for all of their shitty, intrusive, annoying government programs, and all of their welfare/handout voters.
Hey, pay for all of our shit but don’t complain about it!
Rich people are more likley to be Republican. They don’t want to pay high taxes. Democrats do not, so they don’t care about taxing the rich, and they need more government services.
Not a hard concept to grasp.
When you soak the rich, this is what happens.
Maryland plan to tax millionaires backfires
Top earners disappearing as economy withers
Baltimore Sun
31 July 2009
One of Maryland’s budget-balancing tactics – asking millionaires to pay more money to the state – appears to be backfiring as the number of the highest-earning taxpayers dwindles with the flagging economy.
A year ago, Maryland became one of the first states in the nation to create a higher tax bracket for millionaires as part of a broader package of maneuvers intended to help balance the state’s finances and make the tax code more progressive.
But as the state comptroller’s office sifts through this year’s returns, it is finding that the number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April has fallen by one-third, to about 2,000. Taxes collected from those returns as of last month have declined by roughly $100 million.….
————–
Read the whole thing.
Over $100mm in tax revenues in Maryland goes buh-bye . Somehow, this is a good thing for the majority of hard-working people who don’t earn that kind of money.
the very people who pay for all of their shitty, intrusive, annoying government programs, and all of their welfare/handout voters.
They pay for your shitty government programs too, though.
Democrats do not, so they don’t care about taxing the rich, and they need more government services.
Are you saying that Democrats don’t pay taxes? WTF have I been doing all this time?
Wow, the whole state of Maryland went Galt?
“Are you saying that Democrats don’t pay taxes? WTF have I been doing all this time?”
I’m saying there are more wealthy Republicans than wealthy Democrats, thus they don’t want to pay more taxes than they already do. Just common sense.
Just common sense.
Uh huh. Sure. In Crazytown, maybe.
Read the whole thing.
Sure. Here’s the rest of the article.
It’s almost as if in a recession and record unemployment, people are for some reasons reporting less income. Holy hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UculXjdcSYs
Crazy Town you say?
Right, and you guys in your inimitable wisdom and long years of paying income taxes think that this is precisely the correct time to be raising taxes. Holy hell. And it’s only urban myth for wealthy people in Baltimore to change residences out of state due to a higher tax rate. You know this because….?
I’m saying there are more wealthy Republicans than wealthy Democrats, thus they don’t want to pay more taxes than they already do.
What you are saying is that Democrats purposely don’t make a whole lot of money because they don’t want to pay taxes. Is that it?
As a taxpayer, I say bite me.
Crazy Town you say?
Good god, no.
Are you saying that Democrats don’t pay taxes?
Geithner
Daschle
Killifer
Sebelius
Marshall
Kirk
Solis
Gates
Shall we continue?
And it’s only urban myth for wealthy people in Baltimore to change residences out of state due to a higher tax rate. You know this because….?
Umm… I don’t. I pointed out, as did the article, which you linked to as proof you do, that there’s no conclusive evidence whatsoever. I covered why I think you would do this much earlier in the thread this morning, but I’ll avoid sparking another temper tantrum from you.
matt621: Read “The Millionaire Next Door” and “The Millionaire Mind” by Thomas Stanley.
Learn that 90% of millionaires in America are first-generation wealthy. And that they got their wealth, miracle of miracles, by working for it instead of whining about it.
Yes, those people accumulated their wealth over time. A large point of the books was that they didn’t earn $1,000,000+ or even anything close to that in a single year.
So a small increase in the tax rate of those earning over a million per year, or even over $250,000/yr, would affect only very few of those millionaires next door, wouldn’t it?
Dennis: Soaking the rich is always your answer
A small increase in the marginal tax rate for the very rich is not “soaking”. But don’t let that stop you from using the less accurate, loaded term just so you can argue against something that wasn’t said.
Dennis: Four words regarding Democrats and economic policy.
Cash For Clunkers Program
That would be the program that is:
- very popular
- has stimulated economic activity at car dealers
- has reduced the number of inefficient, polluting cars thereby marginally
- improving the environment and
- reducing to some small degree dependence on foreign oil
And your complaint would be? Oh, right, sorry. I forgot.
- proposed and passed by (mostly) Democrats.
I keep forgetting how that always trumps everything.
Baba R L O: Of course, that understanding is also what leads me to snicker every time I hear someone complain that 15 million people (less than 5%) have control of 95% of the money, and this is BAD, and the SOLUTION is to give control of 100% of the money to .00015% of the population, and that’s somehow BETTER.
Yeah, ’cause that’s exactly what everyone is saying.
Except it isn’t.
Frank DiSalle: The government inadvertently does bad things with their money – like prevent lumber production because of owls, and oil production because of caribou.
Clearly it depends on your definition of “bad things”.
If that’s the best example of gov’t waste you could come up with I say let ‘em do more!
Gariel mcKee: Democrats demonize “the rich” (also known as people who work for a living…
Yeah, because all those minimum wage earners don’t really work like the Paris Hiltons of the world do.
I never understood why just not a flat tax, no convoluted 65,000 page tax code that our congressmen and Cabinent members cant even figure out, just something simple like 10%.
So,
someone that makes $1,000,000 pays $100,000 in tax and
someone that makes $10,000 pays $1,000 in tax
That would be the program that is:
–bankrupt in a week. EPIC FAIL.
I never understood why just not a flat tax, no convoluted 65,000 page tax code
Because then you can’t punish the people you don’t like (SUV Drivers, Small Business, Smokers, Investors) and reward the ones you do (Prius drivers, Hollywood producers, Campaign Contributors, Trial Lawyers, Welfare Moms)
Plus, when you need to raise more cash, you have to raise taxes on everyone and can’t rely on demonization and class warfare. If not for those tools, the Democratics would have been long extinct.
I never understood why just not a flat tax…
Good question. Here are just a few answers (as opposed to SaveFarris’ bullshit in the guise of answers)
a) equal rates of taxation have differing impact on people with differing levels of income. 10% off the income of a person earning 100,000 means maybe he has to buy a toyota instead of a jaguar. 10% off the income of a person earning 10,000 means maybe he can’t pay his rent.
b) one reason the federal income tax is progressive is that most other taxes and fees one pays to various government entities (tolls, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, many state taxes, etc.) are already flat, and some, like the payroll tax for social security, are regressive, in that people of higher income don’t pay it. The progressive federal tax actually works to even out the total tax burden and making the actual impact of paying taxes (see a) as similar as possible for each citizen.
c) people on the upper end of the income scale have the ability and every incentive to hire clever accountants and lawyers to shelter (i.e. render non-taxable) as much of their income as possible. This means that you would never get the 10,000 you are expecting out of the 100,000-earner. Revenue would plummet necessitating raising the flat tax on everybody, the federal government would try to recoup its losses by raising existing flat fees and taxes, and by cutting federal revenues to the states (which would cause the states to increase their flat sales taxes and income taxes). All of this would exacerbate the problem of differing impact (see a).
Every study of various flat-tax proposals that have been put forward (apart from those conducted by people closely connected to the Republican Party and right-wing “think”-tanks) comes to the same conclusion: a flat federal income tax would result in a decrease in total tax burden for people of high income, and an increase in total tax burden for lower and middle-income people (i.e. the vast majority of us).
In other words, it’s just the standard republican party policy of taking care of the rich and soaking the rest of us. No wonder sheep like SaveFergie like it.
people on the upper end of the income scale have the ability and every incentive to hire clever accountants and lawyers to shelter (i.e. render non-taxable) as much of their income as possible. This means that you would never get the 10,000 you are expecting out of the 100,000-earner.
You must have missed the part where the tax code is no longer 65,000 pages of loopholes. You can hire all the lawyers and accountants you want: it’s still the same rate.
10% off the income of a person earning 100,000 means maybe he has to buy a toyota instead of a jaguar.
Not really. It actually means they can’t hire a part time worker to help with their small business.
You can hire all the lawyers and accountants you want: it’s still the same rate.
You vastly underestimate the cleverness of lawyers and accountants. Just to take a for instance, a clever employer can mask a lot of compensation as things like travel expense allowances. Are you going to tax reimbursed travel expenses? If so you’ve just made life really shitty for Joe the Electrolux salesman.
Now you can try to craft the code to account for these things, but the clever accountants and lawyers will always be a few steps ahead. Result: before too long you’re back to your 65000 pages.
And even if you manage to somehow write an accountant-proof code, you’ve still got the other structural weaknesses of the flat tax that I enumerate my previous post.
One final thought, sf: are you going to be the one to tell Joe Middleclass that he can no longer deduct his mortgage interest? Because no loopholes and no 65000 pages means no deductions, right? Pow! There went the housing market! Again!
10% off the income of a person earning 100,000 means maybe he has to buy a toyota instead of a jaguar.
Not really. It actually means they can’t hire a part time worker to help with their small business.
Pay attention, SF, that’s the result of your flat tax code we’re talking about. But to respond to the foolish comment I think you’re trying to make: some of the highest levels of employment in our history have coincided with highest tax rates on the upper income levels, so the notion that a moderate amount of progressivity is some kind of disaster for job creation is what most non-party-apparatchik economic professionals refer to with the technical term ‘horseshit’.
Dennis, it looks like Maryland’s problem wasn’t that they were levying a tax on millionaires, but that there simply aren’t as many millionaires out there due to the Bush Recession and the collapse of the Dow (although I’m sure you’ve noted it’s gotten a lot healthier under the daily, hourly guidance of President Obama).
Restoring tax brackets to what they were in the 1990’s by letting the disastrous Bush tax-cuts die is not “soaking the rich.”
Restoring the highest bracket to what it was during WWII at 90%? Yeah, that would be pretty extreme. But it goes to show you that Americans used to understand that wars are expensive things that require sacrifice. For Bush and Cheney? They were either dumb enough or big enough liars to actually say Iraq would somehow magically pay for itself.
Do any of you honestly believe that if the rich were to keep ALL their money, it would somehow affect you negatively?
Well, yes. Roads would fall into disrepair. Police stations and fire departments would be understaffed and unable to respond quickly. Crime would go unpunished. The army wouldn’t be able to do shit. Need I go on? Frank, I know it’s shocking, but taxes pay for stuff. You really think that the government takes money just to be mean to you?
Where would you rather set up a business? In a rich neighborhood or a poor one?
That would depend on what kind of business.
Where would you rather live? In a rich neighborhood or a poor one?
Whichever one is further away from you.
Democratics
What the hell’s a “Democratic”?
Not really. It actually means they can’t hire a part time worker to help with their small business.
So you’re saying that the business owner is going to hurt his business rather than buy a cheaper car? Yeah, if that guy fails, he has no one to blame but himself.
It’s so funny, yet sad to see the ultra-cons whining about paying taxes to better the country they falsely claim to love, in exchange for the cost of a T-shirt. Soon, they’ll proudly wear a shirt saying “I sold out my country, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”.
But you believe Dear Leader when he tells you Obamacare will pay for itself? Do you believe Dear Leader when he says he won’t raise taxes on dime on people making less than $250,000? Do you believe Dear Leader raising taxes on the wealthy, and states also raising taxes on that same group has no effect whatsoever on the middle class, or lower classes?
It doesn’t ‘look like’ that at all. If it ‘looked like’ that, the headline wouldn’t describe the tax hike in these economic conditons a having ‘backfired’, now would it, young Jaim blogging from Korea? Maybe if you were back in Maryland or close proximity you might have a better feel for exactly what was going on. As it is, you don’t. Just like your life and career….all you know is what you read, and 90% of it from liberal sources.
Well, yes. Roads would fall into disrepair. Police stations and fire departments would be understaffed and unable to respond quickly. Crime would go unpunished. The army wouldn’t be able to do shit. Need I go on?
Why would those be the first on the chopping block and not, say, the NEA and federal grants towards studing the mating habits of rehsus monkeys?
Hate to break it to you, Dennis, but sometimes headlines don’t reflect what the story actually says. Of course, I only know what I read.
Yes, Bruce, I’m aware of the sometimes that happens…
“GOP Looks To the Future With Steamboats”
… about a political gathering in a mountain retreat of a ski resort town…. that has no steamboats. Got it Bruce.
Only in the case of the Maryland tax article, it has the pertinent background information that gives credence to the title.
Do you really think the tax code is 65,000 pages long because it’s progressive? Really? That many pages to say this: income $10,000, 5%; income 50,000, 7%; etc?
It’s all the exemptions and loopholes, explanations of what counts as income what doesn’t, etc. Flat tax doesn’t mean no exemptions or loopholes, so it would save about 3 pages.
As for why the NEA and grants studying monkeys wouldn’t be the first on the chopping block? Maybe because the savings would last for maybe a couple hours?
Why would those be the first on the chopping block and not, say, the NEA
Maybe because you could cut the entire NEA budget and still not have the funds to build a good-sized bridge?
and federal grants towards studing the mating habits of rehsus monkeys?
There you’re talking about one or two potholes. Why do right-wingers hate science so much?
Suicida|: I never understood why just not a flat tax, no convoluted 65,000 page tax code that our congressmen and Cabinent members cant even figure out, just something simple like 10%.
That does have a certain sense of basic fairness to it. But it’s also been recognized that, in our civilized society, that those who have more are able to bear a larger portion of the burden.
To take extreme examples just to make it clearest, Bill Gates could see 99% of his net worth disappear, $40 billion reduced to a “mere” $400 million, and not notice any significant change in his lifestyle. Meanwhile, those who are effectively living paycheck to paycheck notice nearly every dime they don’t get.
Now, that’s mixing worth and income a bit, but the point remains. The wealthier you are the more you’re able to contribute with less effect on your overall position.
And even if you do go with a flat tax, would you apply it to the minimum wage earners? To those below the poverty line? Because the moment you say “we won’t apply it to those at the lowest end, they’ll get a lower rate” you no longer have a flat tax. You’ve introduced some progressiveness to it.
Finally, taxes are also used to modify social behavior so folks are more likely to do things deemed to benefit overall society. In the US there are deductions for charitable giving and home mortgages because those things (giving, owning a home) are seen as positive things that are to be encouraged. Cigarettes are heavily taxed in part to discourage their use.
SaveFarris: You must have missed the part where the tax code is no longer 65,000 pages of loopholes. You can hire all the lawyers and accountants you want: it’s still the same rate.
Alas, in the real world where most of us live, the lawyers and accountants who would be involved in writing and new flat tax code would still add those things in. Maybe in a world where the pink unicorns still fly over rainbows and Hello Kitty invites folks to tea with the Care Bears the entire tax code would be “Give us 10% of everything you made. Period.”
But does anyone with a working brain really think a flat tax would actually remain a flat tax once the legislators and special interests get involved? Anyone think they won’t get involved?
To All Ye Tax Truthers:
Subject: The dirty little secret no one wants to talk about
Obama’s Pledge to Tax Only the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say
New York Times
1 Aug 2009
…“There is no way we can pay for health care and the rest of the Obama agenda, plus get our long-term deficits under control, simply by raising taxes on the wealthy,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, a former Clinton administration budget official. “The middle class is going to have to contribute as well.”
——
You don’t say, Ms. Sawhill.
Today’s must read.
And no, Obama is not going to pay your mortgage and your gas bill, either.
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis…
That headline is deceptive in 2 ways: 1) Obama did not pledge to “tax only the rich”, he pledged to increase taxes only on the rich; 2) Obama never claimed that increasing the tax rate on the rich would “pay for everything”. That was only part of his plan to raise and streamline revenue.
It’s too bad the fire-breathing liberal New York Times allowed a lazy headline writer to distort the case in such a way that liars like Dennis could take advantage of it.
You’ve managed to outdo yourself for probably one of the most simple-mindedest comments you’ve ever made here, Wilbur. No small feat. And that’s simply because you only took the time to read the headline and lazily chose to parse it. I don’t think you even read the last line I posted here from the article.
Do you think the woman from the Clinton Administration was lying too when she stated that we can’t pay for Obamacare and the rest of his agenda, and get our deficits under control, without also increasing increasing taxes on the middle class?
Dennis, where’s my plane ticket?
Yes, Dennis, I did read the article. Apparently you didn’t since it is made very clear by references to what Obama said previously and what his representatives are saying now was that upper-class tax hikes were never intended to “pay for everything”.
In other words, not only is the headline misleading, your interpretation of it and/or the article is completely wrong-headed.
No surprise there. Sorry I called you a liar, Dennis, it’s possible you’re just a bit dense.
No, take that back, if it were just this post I’d entertain the “dense” hypothesis, but the number of times you’ve said things, been definitively corrected and come back to say the exact same things again puts you in the liar category.
As to what Ms. Sawhill said, no, I have no reason to believe she is lying (nor did anyone accuse her of that), but it’s far from clear to me what she was responding to. The reporter may have asked her “could the upper-class tax cut that Obama proposed ‘pay for everything’”, to which even Obama would tell you the correct answer is absolutely not. As to whether raising taxes on the middle class will be a necessary part of any revenue measures taken, that’s debatable, but it’s probably Ms. Sawhill’s honest opinion. Doesn’t mean she’s right.
1) Obama did not pledge to “tax only the rich”, he pledged to increase taxes only on the rich
Dude, that’s SO yesterday. Geithner started laying the groundwork for middle-class tax increases this morning on Snuffalupages’s show this morning.
The last president to lie about a tax increase on the middle class was Bush 41. How’d that work out?
The last president to lie about a tax increase on the middle class was Bush 41. How’d that work out?
Then there’s Ronald Reagan who, after cutting taxes in 1981, raised them back again in 1982 when, horror of horrors!, his original economic estimates turned out to be off a bit. Then, of course, he raised taxes again a few years later in a way that hit lower and middle income people and left the wealthy off scot free (SS payroll tax).
But its okay if your a Republican, right SF?
I regret the fact that our economic discourse is so debased that politicians feel that can’t get elected if they don’t promise stuff like “read my lips”. Economics is a chaotic system, and things can happen to change the fundamentals in ways that are impossible to predict. When GHWB bowed to economic reality and raised taxes, a lot of the one-celled thinkers who supported him in 1988 turned against him irrevocably. I suspect that most of those one-celled thinkers supported McCain in the most recent go-round, so if Obama’s tax increases have to creep down the economic scale a bit I don’t expect it will hurt him quite as much, as long as he is good at communicating it as necessary, and as long as the economy in general is improving by the time elections roll around (GHWB wasn’t so lucky on that score).
Speaking of “how’d that turn out for you”, what about all those right-wingers who were screaming that the Bush tax increases, and later the Clinton tax increases, would ruin the economy, kill job creation, yadda yadda yadda? Boy, it’s like they were clairvoyant or something, innit?
I regret the fact that our economic discourse is so debased that politicians feel that can’t get elected if they don’t promise stuff like “read my lips”.
This is very true. It’s a Mozart system and the audience insists you speak to them in chopsticks. Heart and Soul if you’re lucky.
Parthenon: It’s a Mozart system and the audience insists you speak to them in chopsticks.
It isn’t entirely the audiences fault. Even when the audience clamors for Mozart, the politicians insist in talking to them in chopsticks.
And when someone who does speak about the complexities comes along, he gets hammered for being “elite”.