Thom Hartmann: "Tax every dollar earned in excess of $3.2 million per year at 70 percent......

[marmar]

..... why should anyone need to earn more than that, especially given the toll that these people take on the commons?"

Amen, Brother Thom !!! :applause:


(for contextual purposes, he just said that on his show)

[jwirr]

1. At least until this economy is back on track and until the national debt

is paid. Many of them voted for the organizer/wrecker.

[ThomWV]

2. Perpetually - why would we ever go back to the mistake of not taxing the rich?

[Cleita]

3. This would roll it back to before the Reagan tax cuts. I would go back to

the Eisenhower years when the rate was 90%. Trust me the economy was much better then. We had a large middle class, no homeless and this was under a Republican President. Also, my first grown up job was at the Bank of America. The bank was chartered only in California and although it was the largest and richest one in the west, and the CEO made $500,000 a year. We need to go back to chartering banks in states only like it was before.

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. The diff between the 90% days and the 70% days is (in part) loopholes.

The tax legislation that reduced the top rate from 90 to 70 also closed a lot of loopholes, so that more tax revenue was collected not less. The 70% legislation was Kennedy's enacted under Johnson. I support going back to the Johnson rates.


Edit: added "(in part)"

[Cleita]

11. 70% is better than nothing, however, many of the loopholes that were allowed in

the 90% bracket actually made the rich spend their money in ways that were positive for the general public, for instance generous charity contributions and endowments for the arts. Funding for scholarships and buildings on schools and universities I believe also could be deducted. Medical and dental expenses were deductible for everyone. The very first year I had to file taxes in 1961, I had a lot of dental expenses. They were enough to get me all my income tax deducted refunded. Today we could probably offer them deductions for buying solar for their homes and businesses and other incentives.

[cascadiance]

14. And one could argue that many of the loopholes WE had before would help the economy now too!

For example we used to be able to deduct sales tax and credit card interest... I know we have sales tax deduction now too, but that's an "either deduct sales tax or state income tax", which is hardly an equivalent, especially for big Democratic states like California and New York which charge both. fortunately in Oregon, we don't have sales tax, and so even though state income tax is higher here than in California, I can at least deduct all of my state tax expenses, unlike in California. Having a deduction on sales tax would help people buy more locally where they charge sales tax, which should help the state coffers get more filled up, who are sorely needing some revenue now.

Also, deducting credit card interest would help many too that are caught with these very high credit card interest rates too. Now, perhaps if the credit card interest deduction would be brought back, it might make those in government look that much more at how exorbitant these rates are, since not only do they affect those that have to pay them off, but it also affects that tax revenue when they are higher and create a larger deduction (than if they were more "normal" in rates like they used to be).

Now we don't ultimately want to be encouraging people get in to debt, so you need something to counterbalance that to avoid people getting themselves in over their head, but perhaps have some sort of limits in place that would discourage people running up their cards too much. But ultimately, hopefully when the debt situation is corrected for many people and we're getting closer to normal again (if that happens in the near future), this sort of deduction should help demand in the economy, and not have people overly pulled back from spending at the time when its needed.

[bullwinkle428]

21. But the tax revenues DID increase when Johnson took the rate

from 90 to 70 - that's how effective the closing of the loopholes was! Wingnuts love to bring up the 20% drop (always incorrectly identifying Kennedy as the one who did this) as "the last good thing a Democrat did" in terms of taxes as a way to justify their supply-side bullshit, but they failed to account for the closed loopholes. Thom got into all of this just a week or two ago on his show...

[Cleita]

22. Having been alive during the fifties and seventies, I found the fifties

economy, based on the one FDR began, brought more people into being able to live the American dream than what occurred in the seventies. I was the first one in my generation in my family to finish high school and go to college. My family was able to aspire to this for me and my cousins in the fifties. In the seventies I saw the free education through university eradicated with one amendment in California and started seeing my first homeless in the late seventies. Also, back in the fifties you could live on a minimum wage job and still have enough left over for a movie every now and then. In the seventies, there was the start of people with minimum wage jobs working two jobs to make ends meet.

[RB TexLa]

8. Why not go back to them operating in only one parish?

[Cleita]

12. By parish do you mean what I call a county?

If that is what you mean, I think it would limit their ability to get the money they need to lend the money they need to make money. It would limit the banks to rich neighborhoods and the poor would do without free banking services like checking accounts and ATMs in their neighborhoods. Yes, by charter back then, checking accounts were free and savings accounts got interest. Service fees were few like for personalized checks and extras like that or penalties for overdrafts and such. Actually it was the argument that poor states limited the banks in them from making as much money as rich states that enabled the legislation for them to go national, but there are always enough rich people in each state to support a bank. Too bad if they can only get rich and not super rich.

[bertman]

30. Just curious, Cleita, what would $500k be in 2009 dollars?

[ComtesseDeSpair]

4. I completely agree.

That excess money needs to be given back to the common good - not hoarded or wasted.

[corruptmewithpower]

5. Our tax system should also take care of the poor.

The negative income tax will do that. It's like Robin Hood.

[Ernesto]

7. Keep it up Thom!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Hell will freeze over first. Are the bu$h tax giveaways being rolled back?

Rescinded or left too expire in two yrs? I thought for sure that Obama would see that campaign promise through, at the very least.

[Orsino]

10. It's inevitable.

Hatred for the rich fucks who broke the nation will continue to escalate until we fix it, and the only available wealth for such work would appear to be theirs. Put 'em to work, I say, whether at digging ditches or paying through the nose.

This is greatly preferable, in my opinion, to the song of Madame Guillotine.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Inevitable are death and taxes, with the latter not being inevitable for the rich and powerful.

Color me cynical with regard to the rich, ever again paying their fair share of taxes, as being inevitable.

[Orsino]

17. What is most likely...

...is that the collapse of civilization will enthrone different rich people.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. The day they pass something like this is the day I'll hit the lotto.

It would be just my luck.

[cascadiance]

15. I predict states will shift to a lot more payouts with the "long term" payment plans...

... if newer tax rates like this go in to place. That would allow you to space that income over the next few years instead of a lump sum distribution and save a LOT more with that option than you currently do with the long term payment option.

[GreenTea]

18. Cheers to the always excellent Hartmann!

[LSK]

19. I always thought it should be $1million per year

He is being quite generous.

[cobalt1999]

20. Which means Thom Hartman is making $3.1 million per year.

However, I'm a cynic.

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. .

:evilgrin:

[LaPera]

24. Sounds more like a Limbaugh statement!!

[Marr]

25. They'll pass this when we're on the brink of violent revolution, and not a second before.

[sister taoist]

26. That is totally reasonable...Good God, at 3.2 mil...

you could have just about anything your little heart desired. Think of all the starving people in the world, not to mention the down-and-out in America. It's really criminal, this wealth disparity. And it doesn't add to anyone's standard of living; even the rich. When a society goes into the toilet through crime and other issues, the end result is a collapsed economy and housing market.

[glitch]

29. Reasonable? It's incredibly generous. Great du username btw. nt

[Raineyb]

27. Good on him!

He's exactly right!

Regards

[GreenTea]

28. K & R

[w4rma]

31. Agreed. President Johnson lowered the rate to that. (nt)

[jgraz]

32. Just curious: How did he arrive at the $3.2M figure?

And what other tax brackets would he add?