Article on AP "Do the rich really pay less in taxes?"

[ehrnst]

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

The math seems fuzzy - and it juxtaposes apples to oranges.

A lot of RW ignorance displayed in the comments.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Do you think a man as Smart as Warren Buffett would say something

that outlandish, without facts to back it up?

[patrice]

2. The problem is the definition of "rich". The top tax rates, 30+% START at under $200K income.

THAT'S NOT RICH . . .

,or at least not rich relative to where the top of those incomes are,

but that story line usually includes those incomes in statements about how "the rich" pay more taxes than the rest of us.

The bottom of those top brackets should be raised to something over $1 million in income, giving everything from that down to about $200K a reduction.

and, And, AND an increase should be DEMANDED for everything, just guessing here, from $3-5 million and above.

[Blue Meany]

3. On the face of it, it seems to be lying with statistics:

comparing total federal tax burden of the wealthy to income tax burden of the middle class, but it may just be sloppily written.

[wiggs]

4. It's an example of why you don't base a whole policy on a simple meme...you don't

put all your eggs in one basket that can be distorted, smeared, confused (as dem leaders appear to do with any number of topics).

There's more than one reason to raise taxes on the wealthy. We shouldn't just say that, well, some wealthy people pay a lower rate than some lower income people therefore we need to level the field. That's an argument that can be twisted into confusion. It's too narrow, too simple. (It's like taking the whole complex history of torture under Bush and allowing the conversation to merely come down to whether or not waterboarding just three people is really torture).

What we should be doing is deciding what kind of a nation we are and what kinds of things the feds should be paying for. Once we have those costs understood, we look at the tax system and see if it supports those costs and, indirectly, our values. If the revenues fall short, which appears to be the case, you raise taxes (by increasing rates or eliminating loopholes and deductions OR BY PUTTING MORE PEOPLE BACK TO WORK WITH WAGES THAT ARE DECENT AND WHICH INCREASE OVER TIME). It's that straightforward. What's complex is deciding what burdens fall on what kinds of people and businesses. We won't even get to that discussion, though, if we willingly allow the RW to force the issue into a narrow gorge where they can lie in wait and ambush the single line of reasoning.

Talk about how it's backwards to acknowledge our annual deficits then go cut valued, successful programs to the bone or eliminate them. It's like a museum experiencing a shortfall in one year and rather than asking donors for more money they decide to sell part of their collection. Over the ups and downs of economies over time, a museum that pursues this strategy will end up with nothing to exhibit except the cheapest, least important, least valuable stuff.

The discussion should also reflect that taxes and government programs help keep this country stable, safe, organized...and that countries with weak federal governments and powerful families/corporations are not anywhere close to where we want to go. Talk about Haiti, Iraq, Mexico, Somalia, where income inequality and weak govt protections result in libertarian paradises, gun turrets in neighborhoods, and kidnappings. Talk about countries like Germany and Denmark where govt programs help make those countries vibrant and successful and happy.

The case is there to be made...yet, like many many other issues before we choose not to make the best case.

This article is a small part of a huge effort to starve the government and spare the wealthy...this year will be a firefight waged on one side with help of all the money that citizens united and multi-national corporations can bring to bear. Part of that will be deceptive 'analysis' like this one. A strong case -- based on history of the country, facts, analysis of longtime worldwide dynamics of interaction between haves, have-nots, democracy, power, the commons, etc -- needs to be made by dems and progressives and serious journalists. FDR needs to be invoked. Images of an America that those of us under 80 are familiar with need to be discussed. The American Dream needs to be clarified after being distorted since 1980. Thirty years of RW investment in media and think tanks have left us with broken public discourse so that a fact-and-history based discussion is very, very difficult. Yet, this is the challenge.

[RoccoR5955]

5. you ain't kiddin'

about the right wing ignorance. This lack of proper education suits the RepubliCON agenda perfectly!