Ok, so what is so bad about tax cuts for the rich?

[LiberalEconomist]

Well, it simplest terms: such policies can be detrimental to the sustainability of capitalism. Isn't it ironic that the business party (the Republicans) is bad for capitalism? Heh heh heh...

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

1. Rich people have too much money

Movie stars and other rich folks need to be taxed MILLIONS of their incomes.

[LiberalEconomist]

6. Ahem, it is their money

That is the argument you will get from the corporatist position.

[K-W]

18. Money that they haven't yet earned is NOT thier money.

Nobody is talking about taking the money they have now, just changing how much money they get in the future. Im sorry that having a constant stream of wealth has gotten the brats spoiled, but all the whining in the world doesnt make it their right to continue to collect a rediculous share of wealth.

[CosmicVortex21]

49. None of my buisness

to sit back and worry about how spoiled other people are. They leave me alone and Ill leave them alone.

[K-W]

53. Some people dont have enough of a share of the pie

to be able to feed their families, while a select few reap far more than they sew.

If you dont care, you must not care about anything.

[Deja Q]

50. Money they get from WE, THE CONSUMERS. Here's tre truth:

Our system is parasitic. We feed off the toil and suffering of others. This is not right.

It's our society. It's our money. It's our future. It's our responsibility. It's our debt.

Even people are so blatantly stupid that they'd rather give the state lottery $5 for a ticket, which in turn helps somebody else win tens or hundreds of millions.

[TahitiNut]

57. Plantation Economics: The Cotton Wealth BELONGS to the Plantation Owners.

An economic system that is increasingly biased against labor is an unjust system - one which is biased by government imbalances in regulation and enforcement: increasingly anti-labor and pro-corporate.

[Solon]

2. Another reason...

The Rich and Super Rich, paying so little on taxes, actually decrease investment in business and society like during the 1980s. Our country had its greatest economic growth during the 1950s and oddly enough, having the rich pay a 80-90 percent tax rate didn't hurt the economy much back then, why would it now?

[ErskineBowlesVoter]

4. It won't

If a movie star makes 75 million on a movie, they should only get to keep less than 1% of it.

The rest should go to the govt.

[DieboldMustDie]

10. While I have no problem with increasing taxes on the rich...

I've never before heard anyone suggest anything so outlandish as a top rate in excess of 99%.   50% on incomes over $1 million would probably be more like it. :shrug:

[arbusto_baboso]

12. The top marginal income tax rate in the Ike years was 88%, and it seemed .

to work alright.

Thing is, when poorer people have more money, ALL of it gets spent on necessities of life, and therefore recirculated in the economy.

On the other hand, when rich people get to keep more of their money, much of it doesn't circulate, thereby harming the economy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. The top rate was 91%, but no matter what that poster up there says,

that does NOT mean that a person making $400,000 (the cutoff for the 91% rate in those days) paid $364,000 in taxes.

It means that such a person paid 91 cents on every dollar over $400,000--a sum that was huge during the Eisenhower era, when $5,000 was considered a healthy middle class salary.

[salin]

47. This seems to be a hard concept for folks to grasp

that the high tax rate only kicked in at a very high level (any idea what that amount would be in todays dollars?) - and only the income over that amount was taxed. Ergo, I make 420,000 and only the 20,000 is subject to the high tax rate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. During the Eisenhower era, $4-5,000 was an annual middle class salary

Therefore, we can probably say that an Eisenhower-era salary was worth 8 to 10 times as much as its current face value. Someone earning $400,000 in the 1950s would therefore be equivalent to someone earning $3 million to $4 million today.

[reprobate]

72. Let me restate your statement:

If you make $420,000 you WILL be taxed at the top rate on the $20,000, but you will also be taxed at the graduated rates on the $400,000, so your tax bill will not be just on the $20,000 but on the entire income, not on the highest marginal rate, but at the graduated rates up to 400,000 and the top rate on 20,000.

I hope that came out to make some sense.

[hughee99]

16. So under Ike

there was almost no poverty because the rich were being taxed so much? Under Ike, everyone was actually paying the 88%, not sheltering their money elsewhere to avoid taxation like they do today? Is the goal to tax the rich or to help the poor? I don't think there should be any arbitray tax rate on the rich (88%, 99%, whatever). We need to figure out what we can do to help the poor. We need a plan that actually works. Then we can figure out how much we need to implement it and decide on taxation that way. Simply taxing the rich doesn't really solve any problems other than to make us feel better about them getting screwed.
If rich people don't circulate money, where does it go? In a mattress or coffee can? They have bigger houses and better stuff, all of which they have to pay for. This circulates money back into the economy. They also invest a substantial portion of it, in order to make more money, but this also has the effect of putting money back into circulation.

[arbusto_baboso]

22. BUT, and this is the important part....

when the rich "recirculate" their money, it will go to yacht builders, the builders of luxury mansions, Lear jet manufacturers, investment bankers and multi-national corps, etc.

I should've been more specific and said that the rich don't recirculate their money back into the economy in ANY WAY THAT WILL ACTUALLY ASSIST THE AVERAGE PERSON. IT DOESN'T TRICKLE DOWN, SO DON'T TRY FEEDING ANY REAGAN ERA BULLSHIT TO ME, OKAY?!?!?!

[hughee99]

30. What's the difference?

While rich people buy yachts, mansions, and lear jets, do only rich people build yachts, mansions and lear jets? No. Much of the money ends up in the hands of average workers, who use it for rent/mortgages, food, clothing, etc... It's not the most direct path to the general economy, but much of the money does make it back into the ecomomy. Some of the money ends up in the hands of the owners of the yacht, mansion, jet companies, who then buy more of the same.

[OneTwentyoNine]

40. Because at the same time their big income tax cuts come in...

They also get a tax break on stock dividends. Give Bush four more years and the tax rate on dividends will be ZERO. Meaning some fucking CEO can take 1,5 or hell 10 million of his annual compensation in stock and pay ZERO taxes on the millions from his dividends. Notice how after being in business for 20+ years and NEVER paying a dividend Microsoft suddenly started paying one last year. This BS doesn't take a genius to figure out.

Meanwhile someone struggling along at 15-18K per year pays taxes on all that they make.They rich can also buy municipal bonds which have ZERO tax rate on the interest,meanwhile a working chump has to show on his tax return every fucking penny in interest he might have made if he was lucky to save a few bucks.

Used to be the minimum investment amount for municipal bonds was $5,000. Now its probably 10K or more,not exactly for the working class now is it?

Bottom line is at that rate of income your in the class that least needs MORE tax breaks. The working class is being decimated and needs all the breaks they can get.

David

[hughee99]

52. Municipal bonds don't help the general public?

The Municipal bond investment is not really for the working class, but what is done with the money from municipal bonds? Isn't this usually used to fund infrastructure, schools, parks, etc? The rich person is putting up the money to make these things possible, therefore, the money IS going benefit the working class, unless they're not able to use the new highway, new school, new park, etc.

As to dividends, yes, they are heading towards a point where taxes on dividends will be zero. Who does that benefit? It benefits CEO's and executives, who usually hold stock in the companies they work for. It benefits all the employees who have invested in the company, and it helps the company in general which can use this to help get more people to invest in them. Hopefully, that money will be reinvested, rather than hoarded as cash by the company. Who else benefits? Anyone with a 401K, 403B, IRA, pension plan... etc. Anyone who setup some sort of retirement account, college fund, or investment plan.

A CEO can take 10 million (for example) of his annual compensation in stock. Name me a company I can invest 10 dollars in and get 1 dollar return in dividends? Microsoft actually did this, ONCE when it payed a 10% dividend (http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=530425.html). It's normal quarterly dividend 32 cents per share (which is about 1% of the stocks price). The CEO would pay ZERO on his dividends, but he would pay the normal rate on his 10 million dollars of stock. It is regular compensation, whether he takes it as cash, stock, or a shiny new car, and as such he has to pay taxes on it. So he's already paying taxes on his $10 million. So let's say he buys $10 million worth of Microsoft at 27.97, he has 357,525 shares. Each pays a 32 cent dividend, so it's a little over $114,000 in dividend profit on $10 million. And while that's a lot of money, it's still a far cry from "millions".

[OneTwentyoNine]

60. Should they be 100% tax free?

"The Municipal bond investment is not really for the working class, but what is done with the money from municipal bonds? Isn't this usually used to fund infrastructure, schools, parks, etc? The rich person is putting up the money to make these things possible, therefore, the money IS going benefit the working class, unless they're not able to use the new highway, new school, new park, etc."

Yes..it goes for is infrastructure but why the hell should the interest off these bonds be 100% tax free?? Meanwhile the guy who breaks his back building those projects will be taxed by the IRS on any interest he makes.

Both people are needed,the money people and the ones who do the work. One is just as important as the other. Tell me why one class of individual with deep pockets that can afford to plunk down $10,000 or more for bonds should get ALL his income from these bonds 100% tax free while the other guy pays income tax while working on those projects and will then pay the IRS again if he's able to save a few bucks? Why is the rich guy so valuable that he doesn't pay any taxes while the person who does the work pays over and over?? It takes two to tango and its the same thing with those bonds.

"It is regular compensation, whether he takes it as cash, stock, or a shiny new car, and as such he has to pay taxes on it. So he's already paying taxes on his $10 million. So let's say he buys $10 million worth of Microsoft at 27.97, he has 357,525 shares. Each pays a 32 cent dividend, so it's a little over $114,000 in dividend profit on $10 million. And while that's a lot of money, it's still a far cry from "millions".

True,he does pay taxes on the $10 million but its the dividend gift that keeps on giving tax free(if Bush gets his way) year after year. Your correct in your math except people on the board rarely if ever pay the going price for stock. They have options that could easily net them twice the shares you show because they exercise their option and buy the stock at possibly half the going rate--such are the perks of being on the board. So with those options he could easily receive $228,000 tax free using your example. Over the next few years options or not his income off of dividends which all could be 100% tax FREE could easily reach the $750,000-$1,000,000 mark PER YEAR. If the company had a few bad years and had to cut the dividends in half he might only pull down $400,000-500,000 TAX FREE. Boo hoo....poor guy.

I don't care how who he is,should he get $400-500,000 or a even MILLION per year 100% tax free? After the new car,house and boat it doesn't trickle down to anyone,it sits in a bank where it doesn't grow the economy(like Repukes want EVERYONE to believe)it just sits where a small % of the people in the USA hold 90% of the wealth.

Honestly with that much less tax revenue going into Government coffers who do you think is going to make it up? Just look at the RECORD deficits that Bush is running,that's the fallout from these huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I know that last sentence sounds like a broken record from Democrats but its the GD truth,we've seen it happen right before our eyes over and over. Look whats happened in just the last four years.

David

[hughee99]

67. Municipal bonds

Don't generally return a great deal from the investment. A 2 year bond may return around 2% while a 30 year bond may return around 5%. This is certainly not the best investment out there. It's the tax-free feature (and the security) that actually gets people buy them. If you take away that feature, many people would be more likely to invest in something else that would have a greater return. The money that went in was an "after tax" investment. The income derived is tax free, when you cash out the bond. Tax free on the 2-5% between 2-30 years after the initial investment is not an incredibly high price to pay to attract the investment. An investment that also provides jobs. The worker who works on the project provided by the municipal bonds is taxed, just as the person who buys the bonds is taxes on whatever it is that they do for a living.

Dividends don't only benefit the rich, because they are no longer the only ones who invest. They go to anyone who owns stock. The average worker who is doing retirement planning, the union worker who has a pension fund, the average family planning for their childs education. The rich may receive a larger percentage of the benefits, but, in taxing dividends, you will get money from the rich, but you will also hurt the average person, and it will hurt them much more because the dividend is far more important to their investments.

What are you defining as "the rich"? It seems like your talking about those who make millions of dollars each year, but a vast majority of what is considered "the rich" are people making between $100K and $1 million. While that is a lot of money, it simply isn't enough to buy a new house, yacht, and Lamborghini each year. Some work for companies that provide stock options, while others are private business owners who don't get them. Companies that provide options to executives have to declare the difference in the "grant price" and the actual price. The person who gets the money doesn't have to deal with the taxes, but the company is still responsible for the expense. You cite the example of the past 4 years to show how the tax cuts have only benefited the rich, but I heard the same argument that the rich weren't paying their fair share 10 years ago... and twenty. At what time have the rich ever been paying their fair share? Income taxes cuts benefit those who pay income taxes. You can't get a $50,000 tax cut if you're only reporting $100,000 in income. Those who are getting the tax cuts are only getting it on their declared INCOME. Those with the largest tax cuts are also those paying the most in taxes, those who are not sheltering their income offshore...

But I'm not arguing here for tax cuts. I didn't support *'s cuts. But that's not the argument on this thread. The question, as it sounded to me originally was, should we dramatically increase their rates because their rich? This sounds like nothing more than simple class warfare to me and I don't agree with it. If you close these loopholes that allow people to hide their money offshore, set up dummy companies and s-corps, then the rich will have to pay whatever their rate is. If you do this, rather than just raise the rates on those who are actually paying the taxes they owe, while the people who aren't paying now continue to not pay, then that would be a far better way to go IMHO.

[OneTwentyoNine]

73. LOL

"Dividends don't only benefit the rich, because they are no longer the only ones who invest. They go to anyone who owns stock. The average worker who is doing retirement planning, the union worker who has a pension fund, the average family planning for their childs education. The rich may receive a larger percentage of the benefits, but, in taxing dividends, you will get money from the rich, but you will also hurt the average person, and it will hurt them much more because the dividend is far more important to their investments."

Oh bullshit,the average worker if lucky enough to own ANY stocks doesn't own enough to where the tax on dividends would hurt them at all. I'd bet that most people own stocks in companies that don't pay dividends anyway.

We own 200 shares in my wifes company (which cost over $9,000 at the time) and recieve about $75.00 per year in dividends. Oh boy..the tax on that $75.00 bucks is a killer! If we owned 200,000 shares,costing $8 million that would be quite a different story wouldn't it? But if we owned 200,000 shares we'd be multi millionaires and we would get about $75,000 per year tax free under the Bush plan.

Whatever....it's the same BS RW speech they pull every time they want capital gains tax dropped to zero. They talk up mom and pop when really their focus is on the rich that own thousands if not hundreds of thousands of shares in blue chip dividend paying companies.

I have an idea,why not make the first $2,500 fully tax free and then 15 to 20% tax rate above that? That would help all the small time investors and the rich up to a point and then tax them beyond that. Thats the fairest for all involved but I'd bet a $100.00 you'd never get Bush and his thugs to sign on to a bill like that.

David

[hughee99]

75. That sounds like a good idea to me.

I'm all for it, for the individual investor. Much as the higher tax rate kicks in after a certain amount, it sounds like a good idea to have the dividend tax kick in after a certain point as well. I do, however, disagree that the average worker doesn't have any dividend paying stock. If you're a California Public Employees Retirement system for example, about 1.4 million people (current and former govt employees) in the state of California, you are getting dividends from your retirement investments. The same is true of most pension plans, and anyone invested in "Equity" plans in their 401K or 403B. Why? Because many stocks that aren't perceived to have the potential to jump quickly in value (equity as opposed to growth companies) attract investors by paying dividends. These companies tend to be more stable and are very attractive to pension planners because they want stability, and the dividend guarantees that even if the stock doesn't increase in value, they'll still make some profit. This being the case, and calPERS is investing for the 1.4 million California state employees, should they face the same $2,500 limit, which would be reached after the first dividend payment? Should it be $2,500 per union member since the money is pooled? Should it be waived for unions and "group" investments?

[hughee99]

33. Trickle-down

While I'm not saying that designing an entire economy around the "trickle-down bullshit", as Raygun did in the 80's, is a good idea, the fact is that it does trickle down. For example, rich people tend to travel more than poorer people. Not all, (or even most) own private jets. Some travel 1st class. The airlines get that money, and pay their employees. They stay at hotels, go to theme parks, tourist attractions, go out to restaurants, and buy stuff while they're there. All of this money is then used to pay staff, restaurant workers, clerks... etc. While yes, they may have a Lamborghini (which has 350 employees that all depend on some rich idiot willing to spend that kind of money on a friggin' car) in the garage at home, they still spend most of their money on the same necessities as the rest of us food, shelter, clothing, entertainment... all of which is provided by the working class (the AVERAGE PERSON).

[Speed8098]

41. Can you say

Offshore accounts??

Hell, * himself said the rich know how to work the system so they pay next to no taxes.

Yes, they spend SOME of their money on the things you mentioned, but how does that translate into the much needed funding for important social programs?

Wait...........it comes from the taxes paid by staff, restaurant workers, clerks... etc.

[hughee99]

55. Sure I can say offshore accounts.

How does raising taxes put an end to this? On the other hand, if there's that much money being sheltered, then fixing this problem (rather than increased taxation) should provide more than enough new tax revenue that you won't have to raise the rates on anyone. And if you can't fix the problem, how is raising taxes going to fix anything, since the money will still be sheltered.

If the money for all the important social programs comes mostly from staff, restaurant workers, clerks... etc, how is it that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of all income taxes (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1)? Are the staff, restaurant workers and clerks in the top 50%? If it comes from sales taxes, does the working class pay more sales taxes than the rich? The rich can shelter their money in offshore accounts, but if they want to buy anything, they have to put money into the economy. Since they buy more, and more expensive, stuff, it would only be logical to conclude that they would end up paying more in sales tax as well.

[OneTwentyoNine]

74. My heart bleeds for those making $20-30 million per year...

"how is it that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of all income taxes"

Uhhh,because the top 50% MAKE 95% of all disposable income? My GOD have you seen what these people get paid in comparison to the average worker? Ball players,CEO,talk radio hosts. Jesus,these guys drag down TENS of millions of dollars per year.

Of course Limbaugh and O'Reilly pay a lot in taxes. Between the two they drag down $35 MILLION A YEAR. What do you suggest,a flat tax where they pay 22% and someone making $25,000 pays 22%??

Molly Ivans said in a speech that she made about a million last year. After taxes she had to scrape by on about $650,000. She wanted to know if ANYONE in the audience felt sorry for her because of her tax rate. Nope...no one did,nor did she expect anyone to.

Fuck it,tell Limbaugh to give me $20,000,000 of the 24 MILLION he makes per year. I'll GLADLY pay 36% to the government and walk away with the rest.

[hughee99]

77. So is the argument is that

They have more than they need, so we are entitled to take it? Should all people be paid the same amount no matter what job they do? Should a heart surgeon be paid the same as a person who serves coffee at Starbucks? Should a bad writer make the same for a bad novel that sells 5 copies, as a good writer who writes a good novel that sells 5 million copies? Is there a maximum amount that someone should be allowed to make? I don't feel bad for rich people because they have to pay more in revenue, but I also don't feel like they owe me anything just because they've made more from their talents than I have from mine.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. You didn't really read my post, did you?

Yes, there was poverty, but I was alive then, and you NEVER heard about schools cutting out teachers to save money or parks and libraries being closed to save money or symphony orchestras going out of business or charities that helped the poor having to close for lack of donations. (This just happened in St. Paul--a program that was helping street kids readjust to the mainstream had to shut down for lack of funds.) It may be hard to imagine for someone who doesn't remember the world before Reagan, but there was a time when the idea of eliminating extra-curricular activities at school or making participants pay would have been unthinkable. Libraries were open all day and evenings, six days a week. Parks, both city parks and wilderness parks, were either free or extremely low cost.

Then, as now, charitable donations were tax deductible, as were property taxes, so in order to avoid the high tax rates, the rich gave away a lot more money, since each dollar of contributions cost them only 10 or 20 cents. The same with property taxes.

But the greedier segment of the wealthy population wants it all for themselves so they can buy another Lamborghini. With low tax rates, there's no incentive to make charitable contributions, and no incentive to invest in stateside jobs.

[hughee99]

31. I did really read your post,

and I was being a little extreme in my question, suggesting that there was no poverty during Ike's years. My town for example, in the 1950's had 1 public park, and 1 library with 4 librarians (I had to call a librarian friend of mine to find that out). The one public park consisted of a bench and an open field, which was fairly well maintained. The lawn was mowed by a retired volunteer, and the town paid for the gas. My town was about 7,000 people at the time. My town is now about 14,000 people, it has 7 public parks, all with playgrounds, picnic areas, and athletic fields. The Department of Public Works has 5 people who's permanent job is to maintain the parks, and the schools athletic fields. The DPW pays a good wage, and provides health and retirements for the workers as well. No one has an issue with this, nor do I, but the price of maintaining this is vastly greater than it used to be, and has increased at a rate much greater than inflation over the same period.

As to parks and libraries being closed to save money or symphony orchestras going out of business, is it possible that these are being cut because of the interest? In the 50's these thing were much more widely used by all of the population. With the widespread popularity of cultural "advances" many people who would normally spend time using parks and libraries, now spend their time doing other things. They go to the mall more regularly than the park, they use the internet rather than getting information at the public library, and they buy CD's and go to concerts (as musical tastes have changed) rather than going to the local symphony. When 50% or more of the population goes to the park or uses the library (as they did in the 50's), no town would think of making cuts in such popular programs, but as an increasingly smaller percentage (unfortunately) of the population uses these resources, it becomes much easier to make cuts to these programs.

As to charitable contributions, they have gone up MUCH more than inflation over the same period, but the number of charities has also increased infinately over the same period of time. What you have is more and more charities fighting over donations. I'm sure that they are all good causes, but they're will never be enough to cover all of it. I'm sure that the program to help street kid is an excellent program. I'm also willing to bet that this charity didn't exist 50 years ago. As we progress, charities are working on more and more problems, which is good, but the downside is that they are all fighting over the same donations. Everytime one program gets money, that money doesn't go to another cause. When you only had a few charities, all of the money went to the same causes.

[Bridget Burke]

37. So what about the schools?

Cutting "extra" programs, using old buildings. putting too many kids into classes. As a boomer, the school I attended had just built a shiny new wing to house all the new kids expected. Now, more schools use "temporary" buildings.

And in Houston, people mind that libraries and parks have problems. And the symphony & other organizations that depend on contributions from the wealthy have been hurting. People care about that, too.

Tax the rich. I'm not as worried about the movie stars (who actually work, who have staff to support & who pay plenty of taxes) as the genetically lucky who get money just for sitting on their bloated (or toned & tan) asses. Let them prove their worth.

[hughee99]

59. Okay, schools.

"Extra programs" are much like the charaties that I mentioned. They are an advancement that has come in the last 50 years. Sure, you had sports and maybe a band, but that was usually about it. There were no science clubs, ski clubs, language clubs... etc back then, so along with the new programs, the schools had to request additional funding for these programs. Schools are definately overcrowded and underfunded, and I don't have any problem with increasing taxes to pay for this, but would this require raising taxes permanently to 88 or 99%? Once you expand a school, the maintenance costs are dramatically lower than the construction costs. A town could issue municipal bonds to do this, and rich people do buy these, because of the tax benefits. A minor increase in taxes could pay for the maintenance. In Houston, I'm sure that people mind that libraries and parks are being cut, but what percentage of the people actually use them? My friend, a teacher, had his class do a research project last year, and all of the students were able to get all of the information they needed from the internet. Not one bibliography cited one book from the town library. Symphonies (and I am going to a Longwood Symphony Orchestra show tonight) depend on donations from rich patrons, but as I said, musical tastes have changed. Should someone be forced to donate money to support symphony when they don't even like that kind of music? In areas where enough people care about that kind of music, those organizations are able to receive significant donations.

"I'm not as worried about the movie stars (who actually work, who have staff to support & who pay plenty of taxes) as the genetically lucky who get money just for sitting on their bloated (or toned & tan) asses." Movie stars may pay a personal assistant, publicist, stylist... etc. What's that, about 10 people? Bill Gates, for example, is not a movie star, nor was he "genetically lucky". He started a company that employs tens of thousands of people now. And the products they supply provides jobs for millions of others (administrators, engineers, accountants, etc.) and has a much larger effect on the economy than the 10 or so people whose job depends on a single celebrity. Yet, Tom Cruise is "good rich" and Bill Gates is "bad rich"? There are people who inherit their wealth, but that is not the vast majority of the wealthy. Those who pass on cash and assets to their children have to pay inheritance tax. Those who pass on their companies also have to pay some taxes on it, but they are also passing on a company that provides jobs for others.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. Excuse me, I was in high school in the sixties

We did have science clubs, math clubs, ski clubs, language clubs, a newspaper, a yearbook, choirs that toured every year, a band that toured every year, and all sorts of other clubs.

And you obviously did not read my post because I explained that it's NOT a rich person's entire income that is taxed at the highest rate.

The rich guy may hire people and buy expensive stuff (possibly imported, if he likes Lamborghinis, French wine, and Hong Kong suits), but the working stiff goes to the grocery store and the mall and buys stuff from the stores that hire the vast majority of other working stiffs.

Just let me ask you one personal question: do you have inherited wealth?

[hughee99]

64. I have no inheirited wealth...

My parents are still alive, but when they do pass on, I don't expect to inheirit anything. I am have no personal interest in this. I do know several people who would be considered wealthy (over 400K per year), however, none of them got that way through their "genetics". They donate happily to local charities. Though they receive far more requests than they actually provide in donations, the charities who do get money from them receive a significant amount. They pay every bit of the taxes that they owe. They have no offshore accounts, no Lamborghinis, they're not big on French wine or imported suits. What do they spend their money on? They buy tickets to sporting events, concerts, they go on vacation, they eat at the same restaurants as everyone else, and shop at the same malls. A few of them own businesses in the area that provide job for others. I know some of the people that work for them. They don't feel like they're getting screwed by the boss. As far as I can tell, they are good, socially responsible who live much like the rest of us. Their houses is a little bigger and nicer, their cars are more expensive (about 1/2 of them own american cars), they travel a little more than most, and stay at nicer hotels. I constantly hear how the rich are greedy and evil, making all their money of the backs of the workers, giving nothing back, and not providing anything to society in general. I'm sure that those people are out there, but whenever I hear someone make this broad generalization, I think of the people I actually know, and it just isn't accurate.

I thought that this discussion was about the 50's (the Ike years) not the 60's. Did those clubs exist in the 50's? Do they still exist, or have they been eliminated? Are there new clubs that have taken their place? When I was in high school, we had math and science clubs. Every year, they try to get the math club started up again, but they require at least 10 members to get funding. For the last 8 years, they haven't had the interest. When I was in high school (about 15 years ago) we had to start paying to play sports. The school provided some "waivers" but those who were able to afford it would contribute. The Booster club would raise money to cover the rest. This sounds like a pretty good system to me. The same was true of the more expensive clubs. Things like Math and Science clubs didn't require much money, so we were able to cover the costs and no one had to pay. Now, we still have a Science club at the school. The money has been raised by fundraisers for the last 10 or so years. While I'm sure that they could do more with more money, they have never had to eliminate the program because of lack of funds.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Then you don't know any of the super rich that the Bush tax cuts favor

some of the rich jerks I knew at Yale.

Also, I talked about school clubs in the 1960s, because that's what I have direct experience of. (After Kennedy's tax cuts, the top rate was still about 70%). We had no minimum number for a club. The only requirement was to get a teacher to agree to act as faculty advisor.

Sports and choir/band tours were fully funded. We never had to pay a dime to participate. We never had to sell magazines or candy to keep our school going (a practice that I think is absolutely shameful and shows how much this country has deteriorated. If I were a parent I would raise holy hell).

In my youth, people actually believed in that silly concept known as "the common good."

Those $400,000/year people that you're so fond of may be good people, and they may be providing jobs, but if they were taxed at 50%, they'd still have $200,000 a year to live on, which is much more, much much more than the average American family of four has to live on.

By the way, if your rich friends are in sole proprietorships or partnerships, they are able to take tax deductions on anything that helps them do business, including materials, inventory, advertising, rents and leases, vehicles, equipment purchases, and employee wages and benefits. The income left over after expenses is reported as personal income on their 1040, so they already get tax breaks for anything they spend that creates jobs.

On top of that, they get all the tax breaks that any individual is eligible to take, such as the personal exemption, itemized deductions, self-employed health insurance, IRA contributions, etc.

[hughee99]

70. You got me...

I don't know any of the super rich that favor *'s tax cuts. Nor was I able to afford to go to Yale. I hold no personal animosity toward those who were. I only know people who fall into the category of rich, but are not "super rich". Those $400,000/year people work hard, don't screw anyone out of their money, they pay their taxes, and yes, they probably take home around $200K a year. They do have more than a family of four. They also didn't always have these businesses at age 20. They spent many years building their business, sacrificing personal luxuries, spending long hours working, "missing out on life", and they didn't have families at a young age. As a result, their hard work has gotten them to the place their in today. I don't begrudge them the money they make. They do things for the common good. Is a family of four, though, entitled to a large percentage of thier labor just because they have less? If they are getting tax breaks for creating jobs, where's the problem here? I'm sure they do get tax breaks for materials, inventory, advertising, rents and leases, vehicles, equipment purchases, and employee wages and benefits. Is there a problem with providing them a tax break for employee wages and benefits? When they get a tax break for materials, inventory, advertising, rents and leases, vehicles, and equipment purchases, isn't that essentially just money they paid to someone else to help them do business? Doesn't the vendor then have to declare that as income and pay taxes on it. When a transaction takes place, should both the buyer and seller have to pay taxes on it? Are you complaining that they get tax breaks on health insurance and IRA contributions, just like everyone else?

Basically, here's what I'm saying... If the true goal is just to take as much money from the rich as possible, and give it to the government, just because the rich have more, then I'm not in favor of it. If we close the loopholes that allow the rich to hide money offshore, will that help? Absolutely! Can and should the rich pay more than they are now? Maybe. Will the government be able to find a use for all that money? Sure. Will ALL the money be put to good use? As we've seen from some of the things the government spends money on, probably not. If you told my 400K friends twenty years ago that after all of their sacrificing to build their business that they would have about the same income and lifestyle as they would if they didn't bother and enjoyed their youth, would they have done it? Probably not.

[chefgirl]

19. Riiight.....

Think that up all by yourself, did ya?

-chef-

[trotsky]

29. Wow that is exactly what I would think...

if I were pretending to believe what a stereotypical commmie pinko liberal does.

[Tuttle]

54. what about if a beard belonging to radio personality

gets a huge settlement when her "husband" is found to be a pill-crusher?

Should her settlement be divied up the same way?

Tut-tut

[LiberalEconomist]

7. Not only that

they also receive more governament perks and services per capita than any of the rest of us.

[getoffmytrain]

45. If you do that...

the rich will simply move all of their money over seas. Nobody, NOBODY deserves to 'work for the government 80%' of the year... that's ridiculous and oppressive.

[zinsky]

3. I'm All for Tax Cuts

You just don't fund them with a pile of bad checks, like the incompetent, alcoholic criminal in the White House.....

There should be spending cuts identifed in advance, commensurate with every tax dollar given back.

Deficit spending is the reason the stock market ain't done sh*t in the past four years.

YOU CAN'T SWIM WITH AN ANCHOR AROUND YOUR FOOT!!!

[K-W]

20. There is a place for tax cuts in a stable economy.

If the government is truely taking what it needs and controlling the economy properly than sometimes the natural flow of the economy will decrease the governments need and allow them to rationally lower taxes.

This situation is so far away from anything we have now that it really isnt wrong to just say that tax cuts are wrong. There is no good reason for a tax cut until there is some massive change to our economy.

[napi21]

5. Because the intent is to starve the govt of funds to function.

The whole idea of granting exhorbatent tax cuts to the wealthy is to make sure the govt doesn't have any $$ left to provide any social programs. Their idea is that those people with available funds will contribute enough to charity to take care of the less fortunate, but it shouldn't be forced.

The phylosophy doesn't work, but they don't care.

[SharonAnn]

13. Then it will hurt them the worst. They depend on the Federal court

system and the US Treaties to protect their property, their rights, and their safety.

More than 75% of Federal court cases are brought by corporations (including Halliburton) suing for various things.

[chefgirl]

21. You hit the nail on the head

>Because the intent is to starve the govt of funds to function.<

Krugman calls it 'starving the beast'. It is the very foundation of Conservative ideology. They simply do not think the government should have to lift a finger to elevate the most economically vulnerable groups of Americans.
The problem is that when you try and apply an ideology to something as concrete as economics, you get a very tangled, unrealistic approach.
The only purpose it really serves is to ensure that the wealthy remain wealthy while the rest of us go under trying to carry the burden of their self-serving policies.

-chef-

[trotsky]

43. You must be kidding!

I mean, look at history. Every time that we've had little to no safety net, with a small portion of the population making unbelievable amounts of money while everyone else scrapes along, things have worked out just fine!

The Dark Ages, the Industrial Age, the Gilded Age, all marked by plenty of charitable assistance for those who needed it, and no laborer was exploited.

Republicans... building the bridge to the 19th century.

;-)

[lastliberalintexas]

8. Czarist Russia and the Revolution

Most intelligent businesspeople and capitalists understand that the free market must be regulated to some extent and that we need a sustainable middle class, or else capitalism devours itself. Laissez faire led to the greatest boom in labor involvement this country has ever seen. That's why you get people like Buffet and Soros supporting Kerry.

The Corporatists, however, do not want a middle class at all. They would rather see the great unwashed masses ignorant, uneducated, without health insurance/SS/pensions/etc., and begging for *any* POS job that can be found. As the Shrub administration official noted in his letter of resignation from the State Dept. a couple of years ago- this administration is doing everything it can to bring about another Russian Revolution.

[LiberalEconomist]

9. I would give you a cigar

but I am smoking it right now.

[qxtrue]

11. john has a WAVE?

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7205&highlight=



hahahahaha

[CBHagman]

14. They're pushing regressive policies.

For example, look at that nasty little focus-group-tested phrase "death tax," which refers to taxes paid by heirs who receive very large estates (there's a large exemption for inheritances; I think it's about $1 million to $2 million for an individual). Bush goes about suggesting that family businesses and farms are being wiped out due to the inheritance tax. Apparently studies show that this tax is only paid by about 1-2 percent of estates and no one can find the supposed tragic losses of famiy farms and businesses due to the imposition of the tax.

But the GOP leadership is going for complete elimination of this tax, despite the fact that it applies to so few people and doesn't have pernicious effects they claim. When Congress voted on an option to increase the amount of exemption but not eliminate the tax completely, they couldn't get enough Republican votes to pass it.

I should mention that a number of wealthy people, among them Bill Gates Sr. and Representative Amo Houghton (R-NY), have come out against the elimination of the estate tax.

In the simplest terms, the GOP leadership, including one George W. Bush, is taking the stance that salaries and wages should be taxed at a much higher rate than inheritances. So the cleaning lady, the waiter, and the cop are taxed at a higher rate than the Richard Mellon Scaifes and Paris Hiltons of the world. The public apparently does not yet understand this, or it would turn off the damn "reality" TV and raise Cain.

Now the GOP is talking about imposing a national sales tax. I don't think they'll be able to pull that one off, but again, it's no surprise that they want to screw the people on the bottom half of the income scale.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. During the era when Japan was booming, it had an extremely high

corporate income tax.

Instead of crippling business, it actually helped, because the companies had no incentive to show a profit and instead poured their earnings into R&D and employee benefits.

[JackDragna]

23. Yet another good reason.

The wealthy already enjoy a significantly lower rate of taxation than most other countries. Most wealthy people therefore have no problem spending all the money they choose on the necessities of life and whatever luxury goods they purchase. It's not as if the rich run into some ceiling, caused by taxation, that prevents them from spending more. When one cuts the tax rates on the rich to particularly low levels, it doesn't induce them to spend, as taxes weren't a limiting factor in the first place. Rather, it takes capital out of the economy, as the rich will tend to take the extra cash and buy stocks, bonds, put it in the bank or other places where it can accrue value without directly fueling market activities. The end result is that not only does the government end up with less cash, more of the productive output of our citizens doesn't go into productive enterprises. Available capital is the direct result of the labor of citizens and when the wealthy are allowed to hoard that capital, the economy stagnates and the middle class suffers.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

24. I believe the working class and lower middle class should pay

no tax at all. Then on higher incomes there is more progressive taxation the further up the scale you go. Possibly maxing out at a rate of 65% for multi millionaires.

Increased tax revenue can go towards funding social security, a national healthcare plan and paying off the national debt.

[leesa]

25. They never pay the taxes thay are supposed too. Why should

they pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than I do? They hire lawyers and shelter nearly all of their income, something I can't possibly do. They shelter their money in offshore accounts. Total BS that they pay anything near the percentages that are quoted.

[Fescue4u]

27. The people need it more than they do

The money is to fund millionaire tax cuts is much better in the pocket of the populace to fund necessary services and a reasonable standard of living.

[Wilson502]

28. Tax cuts for the rich deficits

You have to realize when u give tax cuts to the wealthy, what do they do with it? Heres what they do, they either save it, or they will reinvest it in something else, prolly the stock market. Tax cuts for the middle class are much better, because middle class people get it, they go spend it right away pretty much.

[LiberalAndProud]

32. It seems to me the Rich have more to protect and should therefor

pay a greater proportion of the cost of protection.

Transfer of wealth argument simply doesn't hold water. Clearly, wealth is transferred from the lesser-haves to the have-greaters daily. The wealth of the wealthy does not create wealth. The debt of the proletariat fuels the flow of cash upward.

In short, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


===
Having just celebrated post 300, good-night.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

34. Hey - tax cuts for the rich are OK!!!

unless it forces the govt. into deficit spending...

AND wrong if it includes the end of the inheritance tax (on estates over $5,000,000) - which spawns generation after generation of rich idiots - something our founding fathers were very much afraid of...

As far as rich idiots go, just look at...

'nuf said...

[leftofthedial]

35. repukes have always been bad for the economy

demand, not supply, drives capitalism

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Fuck, I wish I knew (sigh).....n/t

[Sugarbleus]

38. They don't need it. They have benefited greatly from this

Ultra Capitalist society; it's only ethical that they give back to the community. I would.

What's the point in having more money than God (you can't take it with you) when there are untold numbers of your fellow citizens lying in the streets or barely able to make ends meet or going without adequate water supplies or homes or healthcare?

Having all the bucks one could ever use while looking out on a society such as I described, well I don't call that "Living the Utopian life".

[Wapsie B]

39. I overheard a repug in the store

the other day. He was talking to his son about if a person made $5million the government would take so much of it in taxes. He was talking loud enough to be heard halfway across the store so as to spread his message for all to hear. As if I hadn't heard it all before. Talking about how it wouldn't be fair to be taxed like that and smirking all the while.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Yeah, and even at Eisenhower rates adjusted for inflation, he'd still have

a couple million left. Poor baby!

[Lost4words]

42. Trickle down never worked, ever, ever, ever!

I would pay any amount of tax if I only had any fricking job.

When I was earning 100k per year I NEVER bitched about my share of the tax burden. I saw it as my patriotic contribution to my beloved country and fellow countrymen. When the rich have more money they have more money, when the working class and poor have more money they spend all of it.

Never have the rich lifted the working classes with the purchase of a few goddamn boats and planes, what a dumb fuck statement.

Trickle down has never worked, if you think it has, your brains have trickeled down your pants leg, IMHO!

[salin]

44. over time - damaging for consumption

unless we can run an economy based on the consumption of a few top dollar luxury items (eg limos, yachts, etc.)

Middle and lower class folks SPEND that money to consume - take the money out of circulation of their hands and concentrate it in the wealthiest hands... less consumption.

[DuaneBidoux]

46. The problem now is that most of the REALLY rich pay lower %

than average people (you may have seen the report that Kerry Heinz paid 12% - don't blame her, I'd do it to if the law allowed). Bill Gates paid a max of 15% on over $80,000,000 of dividend income...that's simply bs. An average American family pays more than that.

Progressive taxation is simply better for the country. It allows some of the natural inequalities that develop in a capitalist system to be ironed out. You do have to be careful...I think back when Kennedy lowered taxes (something Repukes always point to) it was good, but you had marginal tax rates of 90%. That is too high and will begin to distort what people do.

The objective should be to raise as much money from the wealthy as can be raised WITHOUT significantly changing their behavior and in order to look out for the common good of the system. I believe one of the real problems that Europe has is not that they have too many taxes (although in some cases they do) but that they are so regressive. The VAT (Value Added Tax) is something like 20% on everything. That is a tax that is terribly hard on average folks.

[MUSTANG_2004]

66. Yes, but the REALLY rich have methods to avoid taxes

As in your example of THK paying only 12% on $5 million in income. Even more than that, her income was probably closer to $25-$50 million but sheltered in such a way that it didn't have to be declared as income. The truly rich will always have the means to avoid taxes.

[DuaneBidoux]

71. Read Kevin Philips Wealth and Democracy

It is not true that the really wealthy have always avoided taxes. It is a phenomena that started mostly since Reagan. Between FDR and Reagan the really wealthy paid a hefty (and perhaps too hefty) 50 to 60%.

[catmandu57]

48. You can't build a house from the roof down

It's takes a strong base, to get a strong base put money into the hands of those who use it, the lower, working, and middle classes.
It feeds a circle, more goods are demanded, more jobs are available to produce the goods demanded, salaries are higher. They put money back into taxes, local and federal.
From what we've seen everytime the wealthy get the wealth transferred to them we start a downward spiral that gets deeper and deeper.

[Tsiyu]

51. We have an fine example today

How's the economy doing?

The Bottom Line:

You will always have wealthy people in a society.

You will always have weak people, sick people and poor people in a society.

Sometimes you will have a middle class, neither rich, nor poor, but able to provide decent housing, health care, schooling, food, etc. to their families while saving for a retirement that is marginally comfortable. The number of this third group will depend on how the unique conditions of the first two groups are managed by the society.

If the first group fails to recognize that every well-functioning society requires sacrifice - it costs money to support laws, schools, defense, hospitals, roads, coastlines, borders - then they will come to believe that they are acting with absolutely no assistance from that society. They will buy the new SUVs and believe that their contributions are over. The smooth road, the street lights, the oil, the traffic cop, the school zone are not their responsibility and frankly, they don't really "need" all these roads, cops, signs, laws, and they don't really CARE if the rest of their society has enough oil or roads or laws as long as THEIR road is smooth and THEIR trip is easy. When that mentality takes over, it is survival of the fittest, and society collapses.

Imagine if the wealthy instead, say:

"I am in this fortunate position because I live in a society where my efforts are rewarded, there are laws to protect me and my business, people are not starving and turning to crime and violence to survive (making me safer), and because my government is doing all it can to defend my society and insure our future as a nation. I would not be in this position if I lived in a less secure society. I have more than enough to meet my needs. I love my nation and want it to be strong and prosperous for as many people as possible. I want to support and fairly compensate our military, who protect me and my family. I will be happy to contribute to the fiscal solvency of this nation, because without it, I wouldn't be where I am today.":)

[90-percent]

56. distribution of wealth

the way i see it, current bush policies are shrinking the pie and the wealthy are getting a bigger percentage of that shrinking pie.

growing the pie allows all to benefit, which will lead to more prosperity.

-85% jimmy

[undergroundpanther]

58. No one

Has the right to live off others desperation.Wars against the weak stared by the wealthy elite must end.Make the rich share because the working class gives them their lives,happiness hope,talent and skill.
Skills talents and labor that rich people think they are"above" having to do.If they want to make a human being into a servant,PAY them what the rich bastard would ask for himself.Anything less is greedy hypocrisy.Rich people in the 1929 stock market crash jumped from high rises rather than face the future being poor.
Financial abuse is abuse it's theft by the haves from the have less.Our economy is built on a pyramid of corporate fraud and thievery!

The rich will abuse the poor rather than give to them,and they'll exploit the working class seeking cheap labor.They do this so they will never have to contribute anything of themselves or their hoards of money they sit on back to society that supports them and their"lifestyles".They live off Us the people that they see as thier inferiors' the 'unwashed masses". Fuck ALL elitism and inequality in society.The rich are terrified of financial fairness,human rights and equality and they really can't stand any freedom for the citizens they think of as :vulgar"..These lying"normal" appearing oh so appropriate neocon sociopaths can't handle the REAL truth,that we need to cooperate and elitism is a LIE...That the rich elitist neo cons and Straussian types, are the cancer eating out the soul of humanity..

Tax the rich so there will not be blood in the streets when the people bite their masters hands.Tax the rich if you want to save the skins of the sorry elitists.
Tax the poor severe enough,treat them unfairly,and eventually there will be a revolution and the rich will finally pay for their lies and games. But their lives are worthless to solve the pain caused by their long term looting,and the parents send their children into hiding where they sit on the family fortune and hide,waiting until the masses are subdued to regroup and try to con humanity out of it's wealth and happiness by using their ideals,laws, hopes and morality against them. again..

[camero]

65. What's bad about tax cuts for the rich?

http://www.inequality.org/

-We've had a redistribution of income to the corporate sector."-- David Rosenberg, chief U.S. economist at Merrill Lynch

-Wages have been going up very moderately, if at all...Virtually all of the gains in productivity have ended up in rising profit margins, and hence in a decline in the proportion of that national income going to compensation of employees." ."-- Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, April 2004.


The municipal bond argument is a canard. The rich benefit much more from those bonds than the poor becuase those roads haul their products and their workers who pay just as much if not more of their income in taxes after you include state, sales, and property taxes.

[cleofus1]

69. like the man said...

you tax the rich.."becouse that's where the money is..."
give me an alternate source of revenue that doesn't impact the middle and lower class and we'll talk....

[kleptocrat]

76. ..

I don't think the rich have enough money, even if we taxed it all. The real income base in this country is the tens of millions in the middle class - there is no way to raise enough money without taxing them something.