Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

[Ozner]

The problem with income tax- companies will find every way to avoid it, and they will do it legally. I would say lower income tax and raise sales tax. Sales tax is much more gradual... the government chipping away at our money that way is less noticeable and less annoying than the large sums of income taxes. Tax from cigarettes and alcohol alone already rake in more money than income taxes, or so I've heard.

[Guest]

An interesting analysis which points to the fact that you cannot address your nations financial problems without repealing the Bush tax cuts. It definately says that at least part of the current crisis is due to a loss of revenue brought on by those cuts. Raising the highest rate tax rate is highlighted as a significant issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html

Br Cornelius

Edited April 26, 2011 by Guest

[preacherman76]

The problem is the insane demand for government revenue. Its become a monster that is impossible to feed.

[IamsSon]

Wookietim, I think you're just going to have to answer it for them because plainly they either don't get it or don't want to answer. The answer is that the tax rate for the rich during the Clinton years and before that, were much higher than now because of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The Bush tax cuts resulted in huge debt because much less revenue is being collected and the unemployment rate skyrocketed. The clear, very clear need is for the Bush tax cuts to "go" and for the tax rates for the rich to go back to at least what they were during Clinton. If they already understand this, then they just don't want the masses of people to understand how the rich have fleeced the nation and want to continue to do it.

Actually, the Bush years saw records in revenue collection. You see, if you let people and businesses keep more of their money, they use it to make more money, which then gives you a bigger base to tax, so you end up collecting more actual money in taxes. If you tax people and businesses to a point where they have no money to invest in growth, then you end up with a smaller base to collect from and you end up collecting less money over all, which then leads you to increase the percent of tax, which leaves the people and businesses with even less money, so then you have a smaller base to collect from and you collect less in taxes which then leads you to increase the percent of taxes.... eventually you end up with people and businesses which can't sustain their current needs much less sustain growth, so you end up with a growing need for government aid and a smaller base from which to collect taxes... kind of like what's happening now. There are more people collecting unemployment, needing unemployment benefits, while the government is waaaay behind in revenue collection so the deficit is growing.

BTW Br. Cornelius:

What's a reasonable margin?

A margin of what?

Who decides it is a reasonable margin?

Why do they get to decide?

What about Hollywood actors or performers? Can Barbra Streisand put together a concert by herself? Why does she make millions and the guy who sets up the wiring make a few thousand? How is that "equitable?"

Edited April 26, 2011 by IamsSon

[Guest]

Actually, the Bush years saw records in revenue collection. You see, if you let people and businesses keep more of their money, they use it to make more money, which then gives you a bigger base to tax, so you end up collecting more actual money in taxes. If you tax people and businesses to a point where they have no money to invest in growth, then you end up with a smaller base to collect from and you end up collecting less money over all, which then leads you to increase the percent of tax, which leaves the people and businesses with even less money, so then you have a smaller base to collect from and you collect less in taxes which then leads you to increase the percent of taxes.... eventually you end up with people and businesses which can't sustain their current needs much less sustain growth, so you end up with a growing need for government aid and a smaller base from which to collect taxes... kind of like what's happening now. There are more people collecting unemployment, needing unemployment benefits, while the government is waaaay behind in revenue collection so the deficit is growing.

BTW Br. Cornelius:

What's a reasonable margin?

A margin of what?

Who decides it is a reasonable margin?

Why do they get to decide?

What about Hollywood actors or performers? Can Barbra Streisand put together a concert by herself? Why does she make millions and the guy who sets up the wiring make a few thousand? How is that "equitable?"

You keep asking your question, and I'll keep answering it - not the CEO of the company. Evidence has shown that regardless of how much they screw up their company they still award themselves ever increasing bonus's. Profits down - give ourselves a bonus - profits up - give ourselves a bigger bonus.

I point your to the banks again. They have destroyed the world economy and yet they never stopped awarding themselves bonus's. More equitable capitalism for you.

Care to give us a graph of the increased revenue produced by the Bush Tax cuts. Forgive me for not taking your word for it.

Br Cornelius

[Startraveler]

Actually, the Bush years saw records in revenue collection.

The Bush years only saw revenues (as a percentage of GDP) creep above the historical average briefly, in 2007 (a very interesting year for the American economy). They were never in danger of hitting record levels.

The figure is from the CBO Budget Outlook released earlier this year.

[IamsSon]

You keep asking your question, and I'll keep answering it - not the CEO of the company. Evidence has shown that regardless of how much they screw up their company they still award themselves ever increasing bonus's. Profits down - give ourselves a bonus - profits up - give ourselves a bigger bonus.

I point your to the banks again. They have destroyed the world economy and yet they never stopped awarding themselves bonus's. More equitable capitalism for you.

Not talking about CEOs now, we're talking about quarterbacks and actors and celebrities.

Care to give us a graph of the increased revenue produced by the Bush Tax cuts. Forgive me for not taking your word for it.

Br Cornelius

As to the record revenue collection: Link

Additionally, the Obama Administration is struggling to collect tax revenues at the same time it is increasing spending. I guess people figure if Geithner, the guy in charge of collecting taxes, failed to pay millions of dollars in taxes why should they.

Edited April 26, 2011 by IamsSon

[Guest]

I think Startraveller addressed the veracity of the claim of increasing revenues. I don't think the claim stacks up at all.

Bushes administration stoked the boom and bust speculation cycle which ultimately led to the collapse of revenue and rise of unemployment. It overinflated the stock market (cheap money) and the housing market with inevitable consequences - it in no way could be considered prudent management.

Celebrity culture diminishes the value of real work in the real economy. It distorts value systems and undermines social cohesion. It should be constrained.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 26, 2011 by Guest

[soulseeker]

... To those rich members of this country who have a problem paying higher taxes...it makes sense that people who make more money should pay higher taxes, so why is it such a big deal. If you are an American citizen today and you are lucky enough to have a nice car, a nice house, and groceries in the fridge. As a citizen of a country which is supposed to represent brotherhood and freedom, peace and love, to the rest of the world ,shouldnt you, be glad to help those who have just lost their house, live in their car, and can barley feed themselves. we should lead by example. Some say the rich work harder for their money I say thats bs because how many 40 year old rich men have arthritis in their back because they are constantly bent over or under a car or carpel tunnel from repetitive motion on a factory line. It is the people who make this country run from the factory workers to the farmers . Those who feed you and cloth you and keep that shiny car running. You should recognize that these people work themselves almost to death to keep your posh lifestyle posh, only to get pink slipped after 35 years of devotion. And you should be proud to set the example to others what freedom really is what brotherhood is what being an american is about , helping each other , so that we can remain a strong and free country. Those are my offical ramblings.

[IamsSon]

Celebrity culture diminishes the value of real work in the real economy. It distorts value systems and undermines social cohesion. It should be constrained.

Constrained how? By who?

You still have not answered the questions. A quarterback cannot win a game by himself, yet he makes significantly more money than the guy who gathers and cleans the towels and uniforms, you have said that a quarterback should not be the one to decide how much he makes which is a non sequitur since the quarterback is not the one who decides what his salary is. You said he deserves a bigger cut, but only at a reasonable margin. So:

Why does he deserve a bigger cut?

What's a reasonable margin?

Who decides it is a reasonable margin?

Why do they get to decide?

[IamsSon]

... To those rich members of this country who have a problem paying higher taxes...it makes sense that people who make more money should pay higher taxes, so why is it such a big deal.

They already PAY more than 23% of their income in taxes which makes up almost 40% of the taxes collected, while the bottom 47% pay no taxes.

If you are an American citizen today and you are lucky enough to have a nice car, a nice house, and groceries in the fridge. As a citizen of a country which is supposed to represent brotherhood and freedom, peace and love, to the rest of the world ,shouldnt you, be glad to help those who have just lost their house, live in their car, and can barley feed themselves. we should lead by example.

As an American citizen, your greatest possession is the ability to exercise your freedom. Why should the government FORCE you to support someone else? Shouldn't you be trusted to decide who you will help?

Some say the rich work harder for their money I say thats bs because how many 40 year old rich men have arthritis in their back because they are constantly bent over or under a car or carpel tunnel from repetitive motion on a factory line. It is the people who make this country run from the factory workers to the farmers . Those who feed you and cloth you and keep that shiny car running. You should recognize that these people work themselves almost to death to keep your posh lifestyle posh, only to get pink slipped after 35 years of devotion. And you should be proud to set the example to others what freedom really is what brotherhood is what being an american is about , helping each other , so that we can remain a strong and free country. Those are my offical ramblings.

A free country where the government takes your money away and gives it to other people, where you pay the majority of the taxes and are told you're selfish because you think it's unfair they want you to pay even more... yeah, that's free alright. Edited April 26, 2011 by IamsSon

[Guest]

Constrained how? By who?

You still have not answered the questions. A quarterback cannot win a game by himself, yet he makes significantly more money than the guy who gathers and cleans the towels and uniforms, you have said that a quarterback should not be the one to decide how much he makes which is a non sequitur since the quarterback is not the one who decides what his salary is. You said he deserves a bigger cut, but only at a reasonable margin. So:

Why does he deserve a bigger cut?

What's a reasonable margin?

Who decides it is a reasonable margin?

Why do they get to decide?

Achieving social cohesion is the job of the Government to decide. The Government sets wage policy and in countries where this is the case (such as Germany and Japan) then the overall economy and society is more stable and prosperous. Wage differential has been shown to be in direct inverse relation to satisfaction indexes for countries.

So it is the duty of society to set constraints on excess for the greater good of that society, and last time I looked that was through our elected representatives.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 26, 2011 by Guest

[Wookietim]

Wookietim, I think you're just going to have to answer it for them because plainly they either don't get it or don't want to answer. The answer is that the tax rate for the rich during the Clinton years and before that, were much higher than now because of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The Bush tax cuts resulted in huge debt because much less revenue is being collected and the unemployment rate skyrocketed. The clear, very clear need is for the Bush tax cuts to "go" and for the tax rates for the rich to go back to at least what they were during Clinton. If they already understand this, then they just don't want the masses of people to understand how the rich have fleeced the nation and want to continue to do it.

Well, that is what I am driving at. And here's the funny thing - the higher tax rates neither caused a mass exodus from the US (The US was in a much better shape as far as employment went under them rather than after the tax cuts) nor did it cause the rich to financially suffer that much.

Yet these tax cuts did cause the debt to balloon out of control (And now, in order to continue handing more tax cuts to the rich, the middle class and poor are paying for it in the form of reduced services)... and if there is one thing that almost certainly will cause companies to flee a country it is financial instability that looks to be long term.

In other words, taxes didn't cause us that many problems... but the results of the tax cuts certainly are causing long term problems.

[Guest]

They already PAY more than 23% of their income in taxes which makes up almost 40% of the taxes collected, while the bottom 47% pay no taxes.

As an American citizen, your greatest possession is the ability to exercise your freedom. Why should the government FORCE you to support someone else? Shouldn't you be trusted to decide who you will help?

A free country where the government takes your money away and gives it to other people, where you pay the majority of the taxes and are told you're selfish because you think it's unfair they want you to pay even more... yeah, that's free alright.

Maybe you should actually go and live in a country without a government to manage these issues, I feel certain that the disadvanatges would massively outweight the "theoretical" advantages of which you image.

We are members of a society and our health, wealth and wellbeing are dependent on that society and the constraints it places on our personal liberties. There is no country in which you are not in a social contract with that society which involves both obligations and benefits.

Conservatives seem to have forgot what the word "society" actually means.

Here is an inforamtive comparison between the hugely unequal American situation and the more equal European situation;

Economic liberalism and the reduction of business regulation along with the decline of union membership is often suspected as one of the causes of economic inequality. John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer (2006) of the CEPR have analyzed the effects of intensive Anglo-American neoliberal policies in comparison to continental European neoliberalism, where unions have remained strong, concluding "The U.S. economic and social model is associated with substantial levels of social exclusion, including high levels of income inequality, high relative and absolute poverty rates, poor and unequal educational outcomes, poor health outcomes, and high rates of crime and incarceration. At the same time, the available evidence provides little support for the view that U.S.-style labor-market flexibility dramatically improves labor-market outcomes. Despite popular prejudices to the contrary, the U.S. economy consistently affords a lower level of economic mobility than all the continental European countries for which data is available."[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Economic_neoliberalism

So more crime, poorer health and less social mobility. What a great advert for deregulation and allowing the rich to keep it all. The question is, at what level of social disfunction does the benefit gained by the rich become outweighed by the penalties ??

I will patiently wait to be called a communist now

Br Cornelius

Edited April 26, 2011 by Guest

[conspiracybeliever]

... To those rich members of this country who have a problem paying higher taxes...it makes sense that people who make more money should pay higher taxes, so why is it such a big deal. If you are an American citizen today and you are lucky enough to have a nice car, a nice house, and groceries in the fridge. As a citizen of a country which is supposed to represent brotherhood and freedom, peace and love, to the rest of the world ,shouldnt you, be glad to help those who have just lost their house, live in their car, and can barley feed themselves. we should lead by example. Some say the rich work harder for their money I say thats bs because how many 40 year old rich men have arthritis in their back because they are constantly bent over or under a car or carpel tunnel from repetitive motion on a factory line. It is the people who make this country run from the factory workers to the farmers . Those who feed you and cloth you and keep that shiny car running. You should recognize that these people work themselves almost to death to keep your posh lifestyle posh, only to get pink slipped after 35 years of devotion. And you should be proud to set the example to others what freedom really is what brotherhood is what being an american is about , helping each other , so that we can remain a strong and free country. Those are my offical ramblings.

Great post!! Thanks!!

[Wookietim]

Hey, Wook, you seem to have missed this reply, so I'm reposting it.

I really am interested in how you rationalize this.

How do I rationalize the fact that half the country earned less than 15% of the wealth? There is no way to rationalize that - it's wrong.

I have no problem with the top 1% earning more money every year than the poor. What I have a problem with is when less than 50% of the population is middle class. A healthy country has the majority of the people living as middle class - not poor. And when you have the majority earning a sliver of wealth every year and then the top 1% taking the lions share of the rest of the wealth, that is obviously not the case. In other words, we have a country dividing into two classes - the super0rich and the dirt poor. We ought to be addressing that problem.

The way to address that problem is to provide social services to help those in the 50% that are earning such a small sliver of the wealth to make more money. The solution is not to give tax cuts to the rich and take those services from the poor.

How do you rationalize the idea of harming the poor just to help the rich? How do you rationalize a country that is beholden only to the top 1% of the population?

[IamsSon]

Achieving social cohesion is the job of the Government to decide

Why is it the job of the government? Is it the job of the US government? Can you please point out where in the Constitution this power is granted to the government? Which branch(es)?

The Government sets wage policy and in countries where this is the case (such as Germany and Japan) then the overall economy and society is more stable and prosperous. Wage differential has been shown to be in direct inverse relation to satisfaction indexes for countries.

Would you mind publishing the links to these studies, and links to studies that show this will work the same in the US? After all, both Germany and Japan have histories of being much more uniform societies than the US.

So it is the duty of society to set constraints on excess for the greater good of that society, and last time I looked that was through our elected representatives.

Why is it the duty of society? Who in society?

[Wookietim]

Why is it the duty of society? Who in society?

In a free society it sort of matters who has power - and in a capitalist system, power tends to accumulate in the hands of the rich. To promote a free society where there are no checks and balances on the pursuit of money is to promote a society that is not free.

There does have to be a level playing field in which the poor can rise up the ladder to become rich. Without that level playing field we end up with a de facto aristocracy made up of the rich that control the wealth, the production, the jobs, and the govt rather than a society where we all have a voice.

Being rich is not a bad thing. But supporting the rich at the expense of everyone else is.

[IamsSon]

Maybe you should actually go and live in a country without a government to manage these issues, I feel certain that the disadvanatges would massively outweight the "theoretical" advantages of which you image.

I have lived in such countries. The first country I lived in like that led my parents to move to the US. The second country I lived in like that I was there as a US Army officer which made it possible to see how much better the Americans living there had it than the citizens and made me appreciate the Constitutionally constrained government of the US and the capitalistic economy of the US.

We are members of a society and our health, wealth and wellbeing are dependent on that society and the constraints it places on our personal liberties. There is no country in which you are not in a social contract with that society which involves both obligations and benefits.

Correct, and in our country, we limit the power of government through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which insure the government cannot constrain the rights of citizens.

Conservatives seem to have forgot what the word "society" actually means.

Actually, I think Liberals are the ones who forget.

Here is an inforamtive comparison between the hugely unequal American situation and the more equal European situation;

http://en.wikipedia....c_neoliberalism

So more crime, poorer health and less social mobility. What a great advert for deregulation and allowing the rich to keep it all. The question is, at what level of social disfunction does the benefit gained by the rich become outweighed by the penalties ??

I will patiently wait to be called a communist now

Br Cornelius

I think it's interesting that the European powers warned Mr. Obama away from socialization and are now slowly moving away from socialization.

How do I rationalize the fact that half the country earned less than 15% of the wealth? There is no way to rationalize that - it's wrong.

Why is it wrong?

I have no problem with the top 1% earning more money every year than the poor. What I have a problem with is when less than 50% of the population is middle class.

What if that bottom 50% is there because they want to be there, because they want the government to take care of them?

A healthy country has the majority of the people living as middle class - not poor. And when you have the majority earning a sliver of wealth every year and then the top 1% taking the lions share of the rest of the wealth, that is obviously not the case.

Is this personal opinion, or do you have some information to support this?

In other words, we have a country dividing into two classes - the super0rich and the dirt poor. We ought to be addressing that problem.

Actually, we still have a very active middle class, although the Obama Administration is working hard to move as many of us as possible into the poor and dependent area.

The way to address that problem is to provide social services to help those in the 50% that are earning such a small sliver of the wealth to make more money. The solution is not to give tax cuts to the rich and take those services from the poor.

Actually, the way to improve the situation is to get the government out of areas it does not have a Constitutional mandate to be in. The way to fix this is to allow businesses to grow and employ more workers, to give the people an opportunity to work and grow on their own, not force more and more into dependency on an organization whose main role seems to be to gain more and more power and control.

How do you rationalize the idea of harming the poor just to help the rich? How do you rationalize a country that is beholden only to the top 1% of the population?

I'm not sure how or why I would rationalize something which exists only in your imagination. Edited April 26, 2011 by IamsSon

[Wookietim]

Why is it wrong?

I have no problem with the top 1% earning more money every year than the poor. What I have a problem with is when less than 50% of the population is middle class.

And as I specifically said, I have n problem with that either. But when the disparity of income becomes this extreme, that is where the problem creeps in. In order to maintain a free society we do need to maintain the ability of the poor to become middle class and rich. And that is obviously not what is happening - the mobility seems to be downward, not upward. And giving more perks to the rich while harming the middle class and poor is not the way to fix that.

Is this personal opinion, or do you have some information to support this?

Your own references show that fully half of the country is making less than 15% of the money.

Actually, we still have a very active middle class, although the Obama Administration is working hard to move as many of us as possible into the poor and dependent area.

We have an active middle class that is on it's way to being poor rather than rich. And that has nothing to do with Obama. That has to do with the fact that there is a section of the middle class and poor like you that will consistently argue against their own best interests and for handing more perks to the rich and punishing the middle class and poor to pay for them.

Actually, the way to improve the situation is to get the government out of areas it does not have a Constitutional mandate to be in. The way to fix this is to allow businesses to grow and employ more workers, to give the people an opportunity to work and grow on their own, not force more and more into dependency on an organization whose main role seems to be to gain more and more power and control.

"Constitutional Mandate"? You think that the govt has a "Constitutional mandate" to coddle the rich? Last I saw, the constitution handed a mandate (as a whole) to provide for a level playing field in which the poor are upwardly mobile. Taking social services away from them in order to coddle the rich with tax breaks is not doing that. The rich are big boys - they will not be destitute if they have to pay a minuscule amount more in taxes, nor will they suddenly stop employing people because of them. The rich were neither broke during the Clinton years (Before the recent tax cuts) nor was employment flatlining as it is now (After the tax cuts). Therefore your argument is null and void - the govt does have a responsibility to provide a level playing field and the consequences you seem to think will happen have not been borne out in historical data.

I'm not sure how or why I would rationalize something which exists only in your imagination.

Excuse me? My imagination? Is it my imagination that the rich are getting tax cuts and the poor are seeing social services that help them cut to pay for those cuts? Is it my imagination that unemployment has increased as we instituted tax cuts for the rich? Is it my imagination that fully half the country makes less than 15% of the money?

It seems that the only imagination at work here is yours - imagination that says that coddling the rich and punishing the poor will somehow make things better.

[Ignus Fatuus]

Hmmm... I thought that this was a discussion about the rich paying taxes and you hated to get off topic. But I guess Illegal immigrants are part of discussing the rich and their taxes now?

Hmmmm???

Raise the prices on the rich and while many illegals are not paying any taxes is off topic???

Hmmmm???

[Ignus Fatuus]

not really when they send their money home, they pay mexican taxes and then use ours for their health care and education. mexico wants that money because it is their largest industry

Yup that happens here also. They send the money home to their families. Guess you are right about taxes being payed, with money from "our" wallet. Sucks a bunch does it not???

Do not know if it is their largest industry, yet this is one thing that america needs to clean up if we ever are going to climb out of our garbage. Speaking of garbage ... anyone here or anywhere who believes that we are not being hurt by these illegals either have too large of a heart which clouds their minds or are plainly stupid.

Like directly down the road where a good friend of mine and a few of his co workers lost their jobs as illegals came in and as they do work harder ... fact!!! They work for half the price. Send our jobs overseas for half the price or let in illegals for half the price. Greed is greeed is greeeeddd!!! *** hate the greedy. Well besides my Uncle Dale!!!

[Wookietim]

Hmmmm???

Raise the prices on the rich and while many illegals are not paying any taxes is off topic???

Hmmmm???

When you classified the topic as "The only debate here again is americans believing the taxes should be raised on the rich. Nothing more, nothing less." Your words - Posted Yesterday, 11:03 PM system time.

Now, suddenly, it includes whether illegal immigrants are paying taxes?

So, yes : Hmmmm.

[FurthurBB]

When you classified the topic as "The only debate here again is americans believing the taxes should be raised on the rich. Nothing more, nothing less." Your words - Posted Yesterday, 11:03 PM system time.

Now, suddenly, it includes whether illegal immigrants are paying taxes?

So, yes : Hmmmm.

Hmmm, considering that 1/2 of California's annual income is paid by illegal immigrants and we know they come here to work, this just another example of citizens of this country having absolutely no idea how it works or what is going on in it.

[FurthurBB]

I'm glad you realized that. I was trying to make sure I stayed at your level, just to be sure; I figured it was the nice thing to do you know, so you wouldn't feel uncomfortable.

OK, time to sound out the words again. Maybe take it a few words at a time, so you don't get lost. If they get their taxes back in a tax return, then that means the government didn't keep any of their money. So then obviously, they are receiving benefits paid for by the taxes of those who actually paid taxes, you know, the people who didn't get all their money back from the government.

It takes a little bit of thought, but I am really confident you can do it.

Really starting to regret that "3rd grade" remark, huh?

No, I am not at all regretting that remark. I didn't even mean it in the way you brought it life with your posts. Now, I really think I accidentally slipped onto the truth of the matter. I actually meant that is about when you buy your first pack of gum with your own money, but you have turned it into such an amusing mirror of your personality.