The liberal vultures are circling.

[TheSarge]

Raising Taxes on the Rich is Counterproductive

Despite these figures, many critics of the Bush tax cuts still insist that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes, and that marginal tax rates should be increased for those in the highest tax brackets.

Interestingly, though, historical examples show us that when marginal tax rates on the rich are higher than 30 percent, the rich actually pay less of the total tax burden, because they tend to shelter, hide or underreport more of their income to avoid those high rates. Alternately, when taxes are lowered on the rich, their share of the total tax burden climbs. Consider the following evidence from three major tax rate reductions:4

In the 1920s, the top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, but the wealthy went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to more than 78 percent in 1928.

In the 1960s, after JFK cut the top tax rate from 91 to 70 percent, those making more than $50,000 saw their share of the tax burden rise from 11.6 to 15.1 percent.

In the 1980s, after Reagan's "supply-side" tax cuts, the top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax burden climb from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

The Myth of Spending Cuts for the Poor and Tax Cuts for the Rich

During the 2005 budget reconciliation debate, critics claimed that Republi cans were cutting spending for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich; however, the facts simply do not support these overheated claims and the accusation that poor families are shouldering more of the tax burden while receiving less of the spending is empirically false.

From 1979 through 2003, the total federal tax bur den on the highest-earning percentage of Americans -- who earn 52 percent of all income -- rose from 56 percent to 66 percent of all taxes.

Their share of individual income taxes jumped from 65 percent to 85 percent.

On the spending side, antipoverty spending has leaped from 9.1 percent of all federal spending in 1990 to a record 16.3 percent in 2004.

The data clearly show that the tax burden is shifting annually up the income scale while spending continues to move down the scale; the people with the highest incomes are paying more of the tax burden while the poor are receiving more of the spending.

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share

[BEG]

Please forgive my typos, I wrote this on my phone as I am being lazy today and still laying in bed. I cleaned my house all day yesterday and think I'm coming down with something. Also I noticed that my font size changed in a couple of areas. I have no idea why but I digress....  

The spread the wealth around crap is what pisses me off the most. They always trot out Buffet too. There is a huge difference between Buffet and someone who makes $250k a year yet Dems lump them and everyone in between together. Someone as rich as Buffet has all the loopholes and offshore accounts to their advantage. Someone making $250k (isn't that number now down to $200k?) most likely gets their money from a paycheck and not through capital gains. So the person making $250k if paying a larger percentage of their total income in taxes than Buffet.

Buffet makes more money than the average "rich" person. It affords him the luxury of never having to worry about losing his house.  He never has to worry about having a job. He has long since passed having to worry about paying his bills. Buffet gets the majority of his money through capital gains (which are taxed at 15% I believe). Well retired people get income from capital gains as well. Why dems don't see that you can't compare someone like Buffet to the average "rich" person making $250k or the elderly that are retired and living off of their capital gains is beyond me.  

My husband is, what I am positive you would consider, rich.  He went to collge for 6 years and it took us 10 years to pay off the student loans.  No help from our parents and we had a baby a year and a half before he graduated.  He started at the bottom and worked his way up (he is VP of product development of a company that I am sure you would know if I told you). He leaves the house at 5:30 in the morning and doesn't get home until after 7:00. Some nights he works from home after dinner.  

Nothing has ever been handed to him, he has worked for everything he has gotten.  He has lost his job before and when that happened he got three part time jobs until he could find a new fulltime job. With each new job we had to move (we lived in Dallas for 15 years, he has worked for the same company since 1994 until that company was bought by the company he works for now). This last job we had to move from Dallas where my parents and all of our friends were to the shitty state of CA.

Housing in southern CA is three times what it is in Dallas.  Everything cost more here. $250k in Dallas isn't the same as $250k in CA.  You can't just throw out a number and say someone is rich. With our "rich" income we are putting our son through college yet we make too much to claim it on our taxes. We lose deductions the more we make. So not only does your tax rate go up the more you make, the amount you can deduct goes down. When almost 50% of the people of this country do not pay any federal income tax it makes them have less of a stake in the tax system.

I read one of your posts where you said you wanted a " windfall" and you talk about how hard you work. Don't you think about all the other people who you would consider "rich" who work just as hard?  At some point you run out of other peoples money......then what will you do?

Dems need to stop lumping those that make $250k in with Warren Buffet.  It is intellectually dishonest.      

[Laelth]

What's unhealthy for the Republic is redistribution of wealth.  That's not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And it's certainly not freedom.

Healthy or not, that's what's happening.  The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer.

Given the choice to live in a corporate plutocracy and a gov't that redistributes wealth in the manner in which you speak, I'll take the corporate plutocracy.  At least we'll have Rollerball, because we certainly won't have freedom.

They're calling it a "plutonomy" now, just so you know.  And, it appears, that's exactly what we have.  Interesting link below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

-Laelth

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

... I wrote this on my phone ...

You must have the thumbs of a Greek goddess.

[delilahmused]

Liberal rhetoric or not (call it what you will), I think that those who benefit most from this society ought to pay the most for its maintenance.  As it is now, the poor and the struggling middle-class pay a higher percentage of the maintanace costs than those who truly benefit do, and I don't think that this is fair.

-Laelth

But how do you decide who benefits most? We have to agree on this point before we can discuss it. "The poor" don't have as much as "the rich" but the rich do contribute more TO society beyond taxes and take more risk. They invest in companies who are then able to hire more workers. They own companies that provide jobs. If those companies fail, they lose. In the way society is structured today, there would be no middle class without the jobs and investment dollars provided by "the rich". Those successful companies provide investment opportunities for the middle class which greatly improves their lot in life. Even in this economy retired people living off investment income have more disposable income than those depending solely on SS.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the poor, many living off the government and often it's generational. People who are leaching off the system, especially those who have NEVER contributed exist only because the government takes money from working people and give it those who only drain the country's resources. The causes are myriad but there comes a point when one has to stop being a victim. If you look at this country before welfare, we had no victim class. We've not only created a societal burden but have made entire groups of people beholden to the government plantation. This disgusts me beyond words and is one of the things I most hate about the democratic party because a permanent victim class is a permanent voting block. If they were truly concerned they'd give them a way out.

I don't think the gap between rich and poor is important either. If I make $40,000 and my needs are met, I can afford some luxuries and I'm happy and someone else makes $40,000,000 why should that be any skin off my nose? Good for him or her, we can both be happy. She can drive her Mercedes and I'll drive my Dodge truck. I love my truck, why should I begrudge her what she has? Let the rich get richer, lets just teach the poor to earn their own keep so they can have more too.

Cindie

[TheSarge]

But how do you decide who benefits most?
Cindie

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Marx

[Ballygrl]

I look at it this way, I guess I'm middle class or lower middle class, I have the ability to improve my station in life, but we're comfortable the way we are and happy. I posted before that I was poor growing up, my Mother worked 3 jobs and my Father worked 2 just to put me through private school, when I was old enough to get a job I did, I worked 2 jobs for 15 years and went to college which I paid for on my own, you do what you have to do. I didn't grow up bitter nor am I bitter today that I'm not rich, because I know I can be if I choose to be rich, I can go back to school, I can move to another less costly area, there are many things I can do.

The only thing that really ticks me off is seeing 5 generations of Welfare families sitting on their butts and having kids they're not even bothering to raise and collecting money for it, and these are the same people who have designer clothes on and have really good sneakers, and get their mani/pedi's every 2 weeks, and here I am shopping at Walmart, buying shoes at Payless and doing my own nails. I have no problem with the rich who pay more then their fair share of taxes and expenses, but I do have a problem with people that I as a taxpayer are supporting to sit on their butts.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Marx

Yes, well, liberals love to tell us how we don't need luxuries. That's why liberalism always makes sure every one is reduced to being perpetually needy.

Yet, look how many people are employed by other people being able to spend disposable income.

Luxuries don't just consume wealth, it creates and spreads wealth.

[Ballygrl]

Yes, well, liberals love to tell us how we don't need luxuries. That's why liberalism always makes sure every one is reduced to being perpetually needy.

Yet, look how many people are employed by other people being able to spend disposable income.

Luxuries don't just consume wealth, it creates and spreads wealth.

Of course it does, if a rich person buys a yacht that money trickles down to the company that sells the yacht, then that trickles down to the company that builds the parts for the yacht, to the company that makes the paint for the yacht, to the company that build furniture for the yacht etc.

[TheSarge]

Yes, well, liberals love to tell us how we don't need luxuries. That's why liberalism always makes sure every one is reduced to being perpetually needy.

Yet, look how many people are employed by other people being able to spend disposable income.

Luxuries don't just consume wealth, it creates and spreads wealth.

That quote from Marx is what our Liberal friend was really dying to tell us...but she doesn't have the guts to come right out and say it.

[Thor]

Of course it does, if a rich person buys a yacht that money trickles down to the company that sells the yacht, then that trickles down to the company that builds the parts for the yacht, to the company that makes the paint for the yacht, to the company that build furniture for the yacht etc.

let's not forget the boat slip owners that collect rent from the yacht owner and the people that are required to maintain & service that yacht........

[Ballygrl]

let's not forget the boat slip owners that collect rent from the yacht owner and the people that are required to maintain & service that yacht........

Yep! no idea how the leftist mind doesn't get that.

[USA4ME]

Healthy or not, that's what's happening.  The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer.

I meant redistribution of wealth from those that have to those who don't, but you already knew that.  It's fundamentally not what the founding fathers intended to be the role of gov't.  As someone who has extra, I am in a much better position to personally help my fellow man in a way that is meaningful than someone sitting in a cubicle in DC who wants to reach in my pocket and hand it out as they see fit.

Not interested in your form of redistribution.  Feel free to talk to others who wish to discuss it, but don't say another word to me about it.

.

[TheSarge]

let's not forget the boat slip owners that collect rent from the yacht owner and the people that are required to maintain & service that yacht........

But it's not FAIR that those people can't have a Yacht too! /DU mode

[TheSarge]

I meant redistribution of wealth from those that have to those who don't, but you already knew that.  

Yup thought so...just like I said earlier...this one believes in:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Marx

[AllosaursRus]

Sure glad I stayed away from this thread!

I won't have to kick the cat today, at least not yet!

You guys took care of it very well. However she will never see the folly of her liberal talking points. Liberals are so closed minded, they can't see the forest for the trees!

[BEG]

You must have the thumbs of a Greek goddess.

I don't even use my thumbs, that is how awsome I am.

The thing that sucks about my phone is if I hit the wrong letter it can insert a totally different word. I don't proff read on my phone so I make a ton more typos.

[IassaFTots]

I don't even use my thumbs, that is how awsome I am.

The thing that sucks about my phone is if I hit the wrong letter it can insert a totally different word. I don't proff read on my phone so I make a ton more typos.

BEG, forgive me.  You didn't make any typos untl proff read.  And that cracked me up.  And I am sorry. 

[Hawkgirl]

Yes.  It is called redistribution of wealth.  That, in fact, is the issue.  In the United States, over the past 30+ years, wealth has been re-distributed upwards (to the richest among us) to the point that those of us in the bottom 90% are on the verge of being serfs.  -Laelth

 

Are you serious?  Really? 

How exactly is the rich taking from the poor?  The rich provide jobs, the rich are taxed to support that large percentage of americans that don't even work.   I dont think you should try twisting things around here.  That spin would work at DU, but not here.

[BEG]

BEG, forgive me.  You didn't make any typos untl proff read.  And that cracked me up.  And I am sorry. 

I always have an out, I've had a stroke so I get a pass. 

[IassaFTots]

I always have an out, I've had a stroke so I get a pass. 

That ain't right man.  Your typing on the phone is fab.  My nails get in the way, and all my i's become o's. 

[bkg]

You must admit that this is not fair.

-Laelth

2 points.
1 - Buffett is a fawking liar. He COULD get taxed at the full rates but CHOOSES to get paid in dividends instead of income. He's a hypocrite of the worst kind.
2 - As him when he last wrote an EXTRA check to the IRS because he didn't think he was taxed high enough...

[AllosaursRus]

2 points.
1 - Buffett is a fawking liar. He COULD get taxed at the full rates but CHOOSES to get paid in dividends instead of income. He's a hypocrite of the worst kind.
2 - As him when he last wrote an EXTRA check to the IRS because he didn't think he was taxed high enough...

Ya notice Liefty disappeared didn'tcha! When confronted with facts they can't deny, whoooooooooooooosh!

[Laelth]

The idea that the poor are being soaked by our current income tax structure is laughable.

I never said that the poor are being soaked by our income tax structure.  I said the poor are soaked by our tax structure.  Sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, and government fees all hurt the poor a lot more than they do the rich.  As a percentage of their total income (from whatever source), the poor carry the heaviest tax burden of us all.

It's the middle class that's most heavily punished by our current income tax structure.  Buffett's secretary is hurt a lot more by having to pay her income taxes than Warren Buffett is, as he freely admits.  It appears to me that the people in this thread (like me) who are middle-classed and complaining about our income taxes prove his point.  We are hurt by income taxes much moreso than the wealthy.

Paying 17.7% of $46 million is paying less tax than paying 30% of $60,000?  On what planet does that math work?        

It's not less in raw numbers, obviously.  But it is much less as a percentage of income.  Income taxes hurt middle-classed people more, even if, in raw numbers, a given middle-classed person is paying less in income taxes than someone who is wealthy.  It's hard for me to believe that you're trying to gin up sympathy for Warren Buffet, but I think he will do fine, even if we were to dramatically increase his tax burden.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

Isn't it amazing that in spite of all the regulations we have to choke down the big corporations can still thrive...

...but the small and medium sized businesses have to bear the same crushing weight?

Maybe we should stop trying to use government to enforce fairness of outcome and instead look to fairness of opportunity.

I don't think we can look to the government to do much of anything these days except to further enrich the rich.  As such, opportunities for those of us who are not rich are limited now and are likely to get more limited in the future.

Sad, but that's the way I see it.

-Laelth