AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - When it comes to paying for health overhaul, Americans see just one way to go: Tax the rich.

That finding from a new Associated Press poll will be welcome news for House Democrats, who proposed doing just that in their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system, which passed earlier this month and would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

The poll found participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress, including taxing insurers on high-value coverage packages derided by President Barack Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans."

That approach is being weighed in the Senate. It is one of the few proposals in any congressional legislation that analysts say would help reduce the nation's health expenditures, but it has come under fire from organized labor and has little support in the House.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20091117/D9C1883G0.html

[aquart]

1. Tax the rich or behead them and take all their money.

Whichever.

[get the red out]

3. Sounds good to me

}(

[One_Life_To_Give]

4. Beheading Doctors?

I suppose it would make healthcare cheaper although it might be a bit hard to find as well.

[Demeter]

8. It's not that Doctors are that rich

We're talking Wall Street.

[One_Life_To_Give]

15. 250K/yr and up includes many Dr's.

The poll question cited in the OP used the 250K/yr income figure when determining who was "Rich". You may intend to only hit Wall Street types. But that wasn't the question nor is it included in any proposed legislation.

[Nederland]

41. You mean almost all Doctors

http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/physician-salaries.htm

And for the record, I have nothing against doctors making this much money. They worked hard to get where they are and deserve it.

[Javaman]

72. In the grand scheme of things. 250K (although rich to me) isn't rich at all.

1.5 million and above is rich. And that is only the 7 figure crowd. During morons* years in office the have mores became the have even mores.

The gap between the wealthy and the poor grew virtually exponentially.

Doing a little research, you can see, that when taken into perspective the 250K crowd, is not to different from the 40k and under crowd, in the respect that they cost of living and the various things they "need" to maintain their lives still leaves them only 1 paycheck away from poverty.

BTW, I exist in the sub 40k crowd.

[yurbud]

127. you are rich when you can stop working and sustain an upper class lifestyle and your kids

could theoretically never work a day in their lives.

In Hollywood, they call this ''fuck you money,'' which means if don't like the way a project is going or how you are treated, you have enough money to say, ''Fuck you!'' and walk away.

[Javaman]

143. THAT is a very apt description. :) Never heard that one before. nt

[yurbud]

170. and in that respect, everyone who works on Wall Street is infinitely better off when fired than

the workers they lay off to cook the books.

[Zoeisright]

155. Yep, that's it.

$250 K is not rich, at all.

[AlbertCat]

232. When I worked in film

I said "Fuck you" several times...and I only made $100 for a 12 hour day (at 1st). That's about $7 an hour.

There's always another film to work on.


Taxing the very rich is OK by me. But we could also get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention stop building expensive aircraft to protect us from the USSR.... and even make Corporation pay a minimum tax, and tax the businesses owned by the churches at least. That might pay for health care and a milkshake for everyone!

[MessiahRp]

251. I like your suggestions AND taxing the rich.

We'd pay a whole hell of a lot of debt off and get our economy in much better shape. :)

Rp

[DissedByBush]

255. Someone who gets it

We wouldn't need to be talking about raising taxes if our congressional overlords quit spending so much money.

Few in Congress have heard of fiscal restraint. Even the supposedly fiscally-conservative Repugs acted like drunk sailors with blank checks.

[lib_wit_it]

134. Totally agreed. Tax the shit out of the uber-wealthy. Less people, and those who can easily afford

the "sacrifice." affected, so, hypothetically less people to complain about it. Of course, the idiot wannabes who will never be "rich" will also bitch, but fuck 'em.

[ooglymoogly]

85. I believe, in reality, the proposal was $500 thousand for one; $1 million

for two in that tax bracket; Not the hypothetical $250,000. That's after all deductions, which for the rich are enormous. Besides it is not a lot, relatively, for the individual, but huge in the over all scheme of things. And don't forget senate and house members heavily involved in the "care giver" boondoggle some of whom being multi millionaire MD's using their post to reap even larger theft from the sick and dying and the working public.

[liberation]

153. Dear sir/madam I am very interested in your red herring arguments...

... and I would like to subscribe to your monthly newsletter.

[Lagomorph]

306. We'd run out of A-List actors pretty quick. nt

[Patchuli]

242. I have a doctor friend who is not rich.

He had to stop practicing medicine because he could no longer afford medical malpractice insurance. Yeah, they're all "rich" all right.

[Garam_Masala]

299. We don't need doctors...computers can do the job...and...better!

[Starckers]

20. Rich

Ten Years After

[liberalmike27]

66. Doctors Deserve it More Than Stock Brokers

Seriously, 250 grand a year is knocking on the door to rich, and certainly provides opportunities to those who earn that much.

But in truth, we need to begin to tax people based on all of their income, not just that which is subject to the income tax, which would include adding in taxes for capital gains, based on the indexed tax scale. The fact that millionaires, that never draw a salary, and trade in futures or the stock market, get away with paying only fifteen percent, is a travesty.

Another large negative effect of lowering the high margin taxes so much is the vastly inflated salaries. There was a time, before the Kennedy/Johnson cutbacks from 91 percent, to 74 percent, when top-end wages were kept in line by the very fact that if you paid them more, they only got ten percent of it anyway. Thom Hartmann makes a reasonable suggestion that we just tax incomes over 3 million a year 90 percent. How much do you really need anyway, in a world where 45 million don't have health care, and one in five lack a decent job, or any job for that matter.

And, we need to can the cap on the SS tax. It is absurd that only low-end income people pay the full amount of this tax, when that 15 percent or so means so much more to the poor and middle class, and their employers.

Do all of this, and create all the jobs you need. But in the end, it really boils down to trying to keep the jobs here, rather than using emerging slave markets to only profit that top 2 percent richest people in the world.

[HuckleB]

87. Yes.

Docs spent years making nothing in order to get the training they need, and most then must pay off big debt incurred during those years. They work their butts off, and they provide society with a valuable service. Well, most of them do, anyway.

[cutlassmama]

185. I agree about doctors. I think it should be Wall Street and the Insurance Companies

s that support the health insurance changes.

[Stumbler]

130. Right on

It should be considered universally immoral, especially for those who espouse this to be "a christian nation," to allow a system to remain in place that creates dozens of billionaires while millions linger in or near poverty. And I love Hartmann's ideas regarding taxation: Tax all incomes below $3 million at the same rate, 30ish%, then raise the rates for additional income over that $3 million mark to 70 - 90%. $3 million annually is more than "enough to get by on." And lifting the $104,000 cap on SS taxes is also morally just, as those with greater wealth should be willing to assume greater responsibility for the well-being of the nation that allowed them to amass said wealth.

And this is by no means "regressive" or "punishing success," as those who built their wealth by employing people will be pressured to reinvest their profits into the company by increasing the pay and retirement contributions of existing labor, hiring additional labor, and reinvesting in new technology. And these people shouldn't complain about paying their fair share of taxes under this plan, as they use government-funded infrastructure (FAA, roads & highways, courts and patent protections, etc) far more than the average employee does.

And for those who were born with a trust fund in place, and create no additional wealth by not working and not contributing to the improvement of society, (Paris Hilton, etc) will still be able to "survive." These people should not be considered "hard working" simply because they have large bank accounts, while folks working 2 or 3 minimum-wage jobs and are still treading the poverty line are being call "lazy."

Unfortunately, the number of millionaires in the House and Senate make such legislation unlikely, until we get another FDR with such morals and a willingness to twist a couple arms and buck the existing system, which Obama clearly isn't.

[JDPriestly]

149. This is particularly true because the "free trade" or near abolition of tariffs

and import taxes has motivated the transfer of our factories, machinery and jobs to developing countries. Average Americans have lost their jobs and are becoming impoverished while the rich, who exported Americans' jobs, make out big time in the new economy.

In Europe, governments have used various means to soften the landing for their citizens. But here in America, our government does not have any means other than taxing and spending to try to soften the blow to us. This has created a crisis in our economy and in our lives.

One way we could make our work more competitive would be to have those who have profited most from the export of our jobs pay for our health care. The Democrats are being far too cautious with this. Tax the rich and spend on healthcare for the not-so-rich. That is a good way to get a little social justice back for ordinary Americans.

[Tsar_Bomba]

62. Down with that.

[Tippy]

108. Not going to haqppen....

Because republicans actually believe that all poor people are evil - or at the very least that they are lazy and stupid. They think that a CEO who cuts thousands of white collar or blue collar jobs in order to make bigger profits is a great example of a hard working American. But those thousands who lost their jobs after 20 or 30 years on the job they believe to be lazy bums.

[Beavker]

122. and even though their constituents are largely very poor

they have them brainwashed into thinking that the GOP is the best for them.
I'll never get it. Never. Even the idiots of this country have to realize that the GOP would help only the richest Americans. But they don't. They just don't.

[Tippy]

132. Brain washed them into believing they to will one day be RICH.....

Poor Suckers.....

[patrice]

112. I know you're going to claim that you're being "funny", but somehow I fail to see the humor when we

are talking about the suffering and/or death of so many un-insured.

:sarcasm: Thanks for making such a positive contribution to the discourse and providing Teabaggers and other assorted trolls all of the amunition against HCR that they could ask for. :sarcasm:

[aquart]

189. I'm not being funny.

And teabaggers don't impress me the way they terrify you.

Either we make the decision to tax the rich the way the British did, or we are going to have to kill them the way the French and Russians did. Because that is what it will come to.

Now you go screech something.

[dschis]

275. The French model is what it'll come too

[jgraz]

174. Correction: take back all OUR money

Just sayin...

[anonymous171]

192. Agreed. nt

[Kurska]

291. Of course taxes should be higher, but you're a sad sickening person

If you think jesting about murdering people for their social position is going to get anyone anywhere.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

295. That seems like a direct threat to President Obama and Senator Kerry, should be reported to the SS.

[DrDan]

2. since the Senate is made up of the rich, I sort of doubt we will see any substatntial increases

on them.

Sure they will blaim to be debating it - but when push comes to shove - they have their personal wallets at heart.

[Rozlee]

77. I believe that certain professionals should be exempt from the tax if their services

are very needed, such as doctors, or professionals in areas that are needed but are very few. Some come to mind as in atmospheric and oceanic chemists that can measure the degrees of global warming. Genetic medical specialists and other needed research scientists. Of course, very few of these professionals actually make over 250,000 a year. Since many work from grants, they're lucky if they make more than their secretaries. And Dr. Dan, I agree with you that not all medical professionals make over 250,000 a year. My aunt and her husband are both primary care docs and their combined income is under 300,000 a year. I can see you're point of view. My aunt and uncle have to pay for their office space, student loans, staff, malpractice insurance, diagnostic equipment, and other expenses I never even dreamed of. But, it's all relative. I know that in my case, if I made 250,000 dollars a year, I would be estatic if they taxed me 10% or more. I am going broke now helping my daughter pay for my granddaughter's medical care. The baby has Goldenhars' Syndrome. And my son's insurance dropped his wife after she threw a blood clot during childbirth and got a PE. She's come so close to having her leg amputated and we've had to pay for her treatments out of pocket. So, I can see your point of view.

[Rozlee]

80. Oops ! Sorry, Dr. Dan. I replied to the wrong thread.

[Xipe Totec]

5. Ask Willie Sutton why he robbed banks

"Because that's where the money is."

[Vinca]

6. Considering many of the rich got rich by screwing over the little guys,

it sounds like a plan. After all, when big insurance denies your coverage their saving is somebody's caviar.

[secondwind]

7. very well put.

[DissedByBush]

37. And those who didn't?

What about those who got rich while providing good jobs to people?

We just screw them over because they're rich?

I mean, they're rich, so they're not really people, right? They must have done something wrong to get rich.

They are a class we can point to and say "They're evil, so get them."

Just like the wingers do with gays.

[JHB]

48. Were "the rich" 'screwed' from WW2 to Reagan?

When there were more upper-income tax brackets, with the top ones at 70-95% on incomes above what would now be several million?

Or was that an integral part of a capitalist system that nevertheless ensured that all the wealth that was created got spread arount to everybody who helped create it, instead of siphoning it off at the top like we have these days? And amazingly enough, that still didn't stop people from getting rich, it just put a damper on ways the rest of us could be screwed.

Don't act like "the rich" are some oppressed, persecuted minority.

[DissedByBush]

83. Bcause they weren't screwed it's okay to start screwing them now?

This desire to target specific groups for punishment is very disturbing.

[unpossibles]

95. how is taxing them at a rate lower than the rich were taxed back then

screwing them? Seriously.

Also, keep in mind that no one got rich without the necessary infrastructure of a society, all of which is paid for largely by our taxes. So not only do you need a large consumer class who can afford to buy your products in order to get rich, but you also need a system of tax-payer funded roads, government-insured banks, etc.

The only people currently getting screwed are us. Raising the tax rate for the upper, upper class is not screwing them one bit, and I challenge you to find one rich person who would trade places with a poor person in order to get the lower tax rate.

[DissedByBush]

100. We're only doing less wrong now

Because we royally screwed them back then, it's okay as long as we stay under how bad that was.

How much money do you make? How much would you mind me taking from you without you feeling screwed?

I'm sure there are a lot of people poorer than you who wouldn't mind the money.

"I challenge you to find one rich person who would trade places with a poor person in order to get the lower tax rate."

That's an absurd challenge. How about finding one who would move to a place with lower taxes and keep his money? A lot of them do that.

[unpossibles]

109. please feel free to move somewhere with lower taxes

In fact, the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world, and wealthy people in those higher-rate countries are quite fine with their taxes! But if you prefer Somalia, I won't stop you; it's a free world.

read this article which explains what taxes are and why they are not punishment:
http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17

I doubt you will though because you might have to stray from your opinion....

And fwiw, I give my fairly meager money all the time to taxes, to charity, to friends in need, etc. I am pretty god damn generous and I make the fucking median income and consider myself lucky and can easily live within my means. Shit, if I made even $80K, I don't know if I'd know what to do with it and would happily pay more taxes, so trying to get me to feel sorry for someone who only makes a couple hundred thousand is a losing game.

If you want to play this game, how much do you make, Mr. Joe the Plumber?

[DissedByBush]

228. Instead of paying taxes

You should just give it away. It's great that you are generous. Plus giving it away removes the government overhead.

It's not great to force your generosity on others.

As far as my income, let's just say I'm only a few thousand dollars a year above the level where my kids would get reduced-price lunches at school.

My friend makes many times my income a year.

And I'm not jealous.

I don't want any of his money.

I'm doing fine with the money I work for myself.

[unpossibles]

285. government overhead... forced generosity....

You really do sound a lot like a Republican. I'm sorry; I am not trying to be insulting, but you really do.

We are the government, and I for one am damn glad there is even a little bit of a safety net and that if you lose your job your kids WILL get reduced priced lunches at school. If you want to continue fighting against your own interests in the hopes of winning the lottery that is the American Dream, then go right ahead I suppose, I just think it's ludicrous.

As for government overhead, can you prove that private charities - many of which are religious based and therefore tax-exempt = are a more inherently efficient solution which can reach as many or more people than the government? I'd love to see where you get your facts and figures, because frankly I don't believe anyone is falling for it.

As for forced generosity - what the heck is that about? Maybe if people would stop buying the supply-side bullshit ponzi scheme Reaganomic wet dream there would be less NEED for charity and generosity in the first place. I'd rather help people by allowing them the opportunity to succeed than by continuing to give welfare to the wealthiest.

You may not be jealous, but you sound like a fool if you are truly living that close to the poverty line but complaining about taxes.

[JDPriestly]

152. Yes, let the rich move to China and enjoy the pollution they have caused there.

Great idea.

Or how about the Philippines or Indonesia. Great places to live. Let them go. Let them learn the language and live on the economy. Wonderful idea. Let us alone to rebuild our country. The rich have raped this country. Let them go rape some other country.

[Zoeisright]

159. The flaw in your argument comes from the words 'their money' and

'his money'. Nobody, but NOBODY, made that money all by themselves. They have been helped from the cradle by PUBLIC SPENDING on everything from infrastructure to medical research. And if it's 'old' money, then it was made by robber barons and even that started from land grants from the government.

Besides, it's only moral to pay your country back for helping you get where you are.

[emmadoggy]

208. Have you seriously not heard the story from a few years ago,

when Warren Buffet came out and said that during a conversation with his secretary, he discovered that he pays a much lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does? He came out and said how wrong and unfair that kind of system is and advocated making the rich pay more.

The rich were not "screwed" during all those higher taxation years, and they certainly would not be "screwed" to pay a little higher rate now. Better yet, start making the corporations pay their fair share of taxes and close many of the loopholes and deductions that they and the mega-rich have access to that reduces their tax burdens to little or nothing.

[polpilot]

178. Prior to 'Fox News' it was known as progressive taxation...now it's 'attacking'

or 'punishing' the rich. It's an absurd and new notion that those who can most afford and benefited greatly from this government are being 'attacked' by paying a greater % on their income for the support of the U.S. The intelligent are thankful for their good fortune and the greedy/ignorant whine about 'their money'. Greed is the most unsightly of all flaws.

[Flatulo]

181. I actually can't think of a single person who would be happy to pay more taxes.

I know they are out there, but I never met anyone who was so grateful to the US Government for allowing them to exist that they just handed over more money.

[unpossibles]

186. exactly. I cannot fathom complaining about having to pay more taxes

if I were a millionaire. Seriously.

I wonder if these are the types of people who when younger would show up at parties and expect other people to buy their drinks all night or clean up or cook since they obviously don't feel that it's fair for them to chip in on anything.

[AlbertCat]

245. I'm a millionaire.... 3.5

And my taxes are a large number...

But I would pay more if I knew it wasn't going to The Creation Museum or Iraq Invasion or some other waste....


BTW....if you think I'm really rich....think again. My aunt is filthy rich and doesn't even send me a Christmas card....I'm so "little".


And I wasn't always rich. I never even got an allowance from my asshole parents in school. I used to buy Beatles 45s with the change left over from my lunch money. My sister and I nearly fainted when we took over the $$$$ and put it in a trust when my father turned 87.( he was a surgeon, BTW) We had no idea!!! It was stashed everywhere! We kept hearing how we were going broke! We never went on vacations. We never got expensive gifts like cars for graduation. (Of course Mother was going to Europe all the time....not taking us. Can't you just feel the love???) I knew we weren't poor...but...cheesus!

I can't tell you how many friends I've helped out who were getting ready to lose their house because they got laid off...like 2 years ago or something. I may be rich, but I don't think like the rich apparently.

That's why you need to define "the rich" a little better before condemning all of them.

[unpossibles]

252. I'm not condemning, I am questioning how anyone could complain about being punished

by taxes because they are wealthy. If it's so awful, give it all away (not you necessarily, just in general)

[JHB]

103. This isn't about "screwing" any 'specific group', it's about restoring a system that worked...

...as opposed to the dysfunctional system that has undermined our industrial base and systematically looted the middle and working class in this country.

[fascisthunter]

240. .

[me b zola]

217. We don't want to "screw them", we want them to be responsible citizens

~and pay their fair share of taxes. And that is exactly what they did during the largest ever expansion of the middle class. The wealthy benefited during that period where the average person in the US lived a much better life, as there was a much larger percent of the population that had money that they could spend rather than barely enough to survive.

We don't want to "punish", we just want them to do their part in making all of our lives better.

[TankLV]

233. What I find disturbing is that some idiots actually are DEFENDING the Super Rich!!!

I also think the French and Russians had it entirely RIGHT!!!

And I am being deadly serious...

[deaniac21]

184. Well, back then the loopholes were too numerous to count.

[JHB]

187. Which simply means that no one ever really paid the top rate.

But the effective rate was still more than now.

[deaniac21]

193. Perhaps

[Flatulo]

213. How many people actually were in the 90% bracket as a percent of all wage earners?

[JoeyT]

144. Uh huh.

Pointing out the rich should pay their fair share, since they put more drain on the infrastructure, is EXACTLY like denying people their civil rights because we're bigots. Exactly. The. Same.

[JDPriestly]

150. The only way an American is rich today is by exporting jobs and importing

goods. So, those who are rich today got there by screwing Americans. Maybe if they want to live in this country, they should pay back what they have stolen.

[Flatulo]

231. But aren't we all to blame for that? We seem to like Hyundais and Toyotas

and $500 PCs that used to cost $5000 when they were made here.

As long as Americans continue to buy cheap foreign goods, we continue to put our countrymen out of work.

I worked in the disc drive business for 30 years, and if my company did not go to China with its manufacturing, we would have gone out of business 10 years ago.

There is no way we could produce a disc drive in this country for even 5X what China can. By outsourcing to China, the company eliminated 60,000 jobs, but ultimately saved 45,000 by staying in business.

It sucks, but such is the system.

And I am not bitter that I am one of those laid-off.

[JDPriestly]

277. Foreign goods are not just cheaper because of the lower labor costs.

They are cheaper because of the weaker environmental standards and the more dangerous working conditions. Companies that outsource don't really consider the awful legacy that they are creating in the countries in which they are now producing goods.

Even here, the cost of cleaning up the environment such as the Hudson River and other waterways is enormous. Think of what it will be like in China. The production of electronic equipment involves a lot of environmental damage. And then on top of that there are all the coal-burning energy facilities being built in China. So, by producing products in China, we are simply creating a catastrophe for our grandchildren and the grandchildren of the Chinese. All in the name of quick products. It is a shameful, shameful thing we are doing. I buy as little, spend as little as I possibly can. We drive very old cars and as little as possible. It is unrealistic to think that we should be living the high life when our country is producing virtually nothing.

I actually bought socks Made in the USA today. I can't find much else that is still made here. It would be interesting to assemble a list of products that are still made in the USA. I would prefer to buy them. One of the vacuum cleaners still makes products here, I believe. (Perhaps they don't any more.) I miss the American workmanship. The stuff we get now is mostly just trash. I am especially disheartened at the quality of garments made overseas. I learned to sew as a child. I appreciate good fabrics and good seams and designs. Reasonably priced, quality clothing is hard to find nowadays.

[Flatulo]

282. On this we agree 100%. It maddening trying to find USA made garments.

Although I did score some Chippewa boots last year. They are built to last a lifetime, and were not really that expensive compared to the garbage.

Colleagues returning from Far East vendor trips reported rivers flowing black, smog worse than anything here, and workers' condition that woul make you cry.

[quakerboy]

243. Paying their fair share

for the bounty that they have been able to reap from the provided infrastructure of our nation is a far cry from "screwing" them

[Garam_Masala]

300. yeah baby now let the little guy screw the rich

when all the rich are beheaded, it will be nirvana! <sarc>

[Flatulo]

9. The problem with defining the rich is that it's anyone who makes more money than you do.

[tiredtoo]

12. Most everybody I know makes more then me

and i don't consider them rich. We are talking about folks like the walmart heirs and the wall street crooks here.

[DissedByBush]

38. Then you need to start higher than 250,000 a year

A lot of self-made, hard-working people make over 250,000 a year.

A friend of mine is in that class. He built his own company from scratch and has over 100 employees. I almost never see him due to the 16+ hour days he puts in.

[WriteDown]

39. A small tax increase shouldn't hurt him too badly though. nt

[safeinOhio]

68. graduated. Perhaps 2 to 5% on a quarter million, net.

Then about 80% on 4 million up. From the 1940s up until the 70s it was that way and the conservatives called those the "good ole days".

[uncle ray]

82. self made man, with the help of a hundred employees.

and for every one of those hundred employees, there are a hundred more that provide some service to them. that so called self made man can afford a tiny tax increase to help provide health care for ALL of those little people who's labor he built his business on. the self made man is a republican myth.

[DissedByBush]

86. Whose labor he built his business on?

He provides good jobs with good pay. Now you want him to give more?

How about he takes what he has and closes shop? He'll be pretty set, and he won't have to work 16+ hours a day anymore.

But his employees will be screwed.

That's the way to get revenge for his exploitation of the workers!

By the way, this part is fun. He's black and was raised dirt-poor.

Let's punish the brother for breaking out of the 'hood and making something of himself!

It's not like he does anything like give heavily to his community church (just like on TV, an old-time Baptist black church), most of which goes to help out church members who aren't so well-off. He's evil because he made money on the backs of the workers.

[uncle ray]

110. just a little more.

and i never called him evil. he simply isn't a self made man.

[JDPriestly]

162. He provides good jobs with good pay. Where? In America?

The rich today get richer by providing bad jobs with bad pay. You are talking about the past. You need to see Michael Moore's movie: Capitalism, a Love Story. You are still in love with the story. You are not seeing the reality.

[DissedByBush]

219. The reality still exists all over

Michael Moore documented corporatism and other "isms" that weren't capitalism.

What my friend does happens across America in small businesses.

Who knows, my friend could probably be making a lot more if he were greedy and didn't care about people.

[JDPriestly]

278. I would love to have a list of American companies that produce good

products here in the US. Please let me know where your friend produces products and the company he has. If I want to buy products of the type he produces, I would see whether I could afford to buy his products.

[One_Life_To_Give]

182. 3% Increase wouldn't b e that huge

According to brookings 1979 taxes on the top 1% were 37% Effective Rate. Today they sit at 31%. Increasing his taxes 10% to34% Effectivemight seem like alot but in a historical sense isn't really that much.

The bigger trick is to determine exactly how to levy such a tax, taking into account that those affected will change their actions/investments based upon the new tax policy. e.g. Increase the Tax on Dividends and monies will move from Big Cap stocks other investments that don't pay dividends. Hence come under capital gains at sale. Additionally have a downward affect on Certain Stock Prices, retirement accounts, etc.

[Progressive dog]

216. that 's a ridiculous argument

Everything in life is in some way not fair. Unfortunately hard work often does not result in large payouts. So when people do get lucky (some of them didn't even work hard), then they should pay more taxes. What did those who inherited fortunes and live from the income generated do to deserve that income? Every developed nation in the world has tried to eliminate their aristocracies, which now are based on wealth. Democratic governments cannot exist with aristocracies of any kind.

[Flatulo]

91. Did those one hundred employees risk everything to form an enterprise?

No, I didn't think so. They need the employer a hell of a lot more then he needs any one individual.

Risk takers are the engine of everything. If you swat them all, they stop taking risks and we all end up as wards of the state.

All this class envy makes me sick to my stomach.

[JoeyT]

146. Randroids are fun, aren't they.

Don't worry, Galt will come save you from the hordes of non-producers, just like the holy book says.

[Flatulo]

151. Excellent rebuttal.

[Ikonoklast]

241. Worked for me.

You are spouting Rand nonsense.

There is no such thing as a 'self-made' man. Every succesful 'self-made' man stands on the backs of his employees, unless he runs a business that only employs himself.

My ex-boss, the 'self-made' man found that out when we went out on strike. Seems he couldn't run the business by himself, like he said he could.

[Flatulo]

244. What a complete and uttter bullshit response. Why don't you read what

I actually wrote, instead of what you think I wrote.

Thanks.

[Ikonoklast]

258. I own my own business.

"Class envy". What total and utter bullshit. You are a complete fraud.

How many of the Walton heirs 'risked everything'? Rockefellers? Hiltons? Astors?

Some of those families haven't had to wipe their own ass for three generations.

They won the sperm lottery, not one of them lifted a finger in toil yet were born millionaires.

And if your imaginary small business owner pays a higher personal tax rate than any one of his employees, he needs to fire his accountant as they don't know what they are doing.

And, you are an angry little person, aren't you? Must really suck.

[Flatulo]

261. I ask you again to read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Nowhere did I address inherited wealth. If you can't read with comprehension, then please don't respond to my posts.

I spoke specifically to those who toiled to create a business that creates jobs and tax revenue.

And dude, you need to look at the tax brackets. We already have a progressive tax code. The only issue here is how much more to proportionally skin the well-off than we already are.

[unpossibles]

304. if you look at all taxes, then taxes are NOT nearly as progressive as many think

and some apparently like to complain about, how the rich are getting screwed over every day.

The upper middle class actually pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes (not just income tax but all taxes) than the rich do.

[Abq_Sarah]

307. Flatulo is correct

When I first started my business, I put everything I owned into it. I traded a good paying, secure job with great benefits for 18 hour days, zero benefits and poverty level income. My husband and I both took part time jobs so we could keep enough income coming in to make payroll for employees who were earning more than we were. And yes, we do pay a higher tax rate. There's no benevolent employer standing in the wings making "contributions" on our behalf for payroll taxes. We pay it all.

My employees expect a fair wage commensurate with their abilities for the time they spend working. It's my job to make sure they get it. If we both hold up our end of the bargain, no one standing on the back of the other. When the economy tanked, we took a large income hit, our employees did not. If I have to start working outside the company to keep things running, I'll do it but I wont ask my employees to take a pay reduction. They didn't sign on for the risk, I did.

I don't ask for gratitude from anyone. I'm just tired of being demonized by people who haven't walked in my shoes.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

172. Maybe more people would take risks

if they didn't have to be stuck in the same job year after year because one of their family members (or themselves) has a preexisting condition.

[Flatulo]

211. Even if you and your family are fortunate enough to have good health

and a steady income, you still have to have lots of ambition, drive, a willingness to work yourself nearly to death, and a good idea with willing customers. Even with all that, you have a less than even chance of being successful.

This is why so few people do it compared to the general population.

My brother did it - me, not even willing to think about it.

[DissedByBush]

256. I can't think about it

I have kids to take care of.

I single guy could have slept in a shack eating Ramen if necessary. I father and husband have certain responsibilities, and I'd be risking the ability to provide for them if I tried setting out on my own.

So I get paid X plus benefits, and my employer gets paid X times 2 for my work.

I could go for that times 2 myself but I would have no safety net like I do with the company.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

257. I wasn't talking about myself

or my family. I can care about other people without being in the same boat as they are because I'm a Liberal. I have my own business, so does my husband and we have a shared business between us. You don't have to tell me about being an entrepreneur. The point I was making was without health insurance in the good old USA your pretty much screwed..try starting a business when you have to sell your house/business to pay for an operation because you have no insurance because you have a preexisting condition. I'm British by the way.
I don't come here to read the right wing's talking points.

[druidity33]

259. so the uber rich

and the Banks that invested everything in risky Derivatives and other financial bundles were "the engine of everything". I'll say. We wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for the "risk-takers".

Class Envy my fucking ass. We're talking respect for the Working Person. You know, shit like a Living wage and Reliable health care, the right honorable things to do...

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

89. Until 2 years ago, most of my work days were well over 12 hours and very frequently

16. Rarely did I have a day when I wasn't engaged in activity related to my job. My husband threatened to sign himself on to hospice so he would see me once a week. I was salaried, made 60,000 per year. The argument that people who earn that kind of money deserve to pay low tax rates because they 'work hard for that money' does not wash with me.

Plenty of people work that hard and harder for much less reward and they haven't seen their taxes coming steadily down since 1980.

[Flatulo]

92. So, um, maybe the work you were doing was not valued very highly by anyone?

I mean, you can work 16 hours in a Quickie Mart, or you can work 16 hours as a surgeon.

Do you begrudge the surgeon his higher income?

[laughingliberal]

135. I worked as an RN in hospice

Nurses have not been valued very highly by the for profits since they took over our industry in the 80's. Patients who would, otherwise, have died in horrible pain without my services might have a different take. I'm sick of the attitude that the rich deserve their income and should get the tax advantages due to their 'hard work.'

Who decides what work has more value than other work? Lots of people work hard and don't get rich off it.

[Flatulo]

139. The market in the area decides it. Jobs that can be done by literally anyone

pay poorly. Jobs that require skills and training pay more.

Having said that, my sister-in-law makes close to $100K as a nurse in Massachusetts, but they have a good union. I'm surprised you are so poorly paid.

Anyway, bless you for doing the hospice work. They have given great comfort to my family on more than one occasion.

[laughingliberal]

141. My job couldn't be done by literally anyone

Most nurses won't even do the work I did. I have always lived in right-to-work states and we are not paid well. Nurses' salaries, as is the case with most wages, have been stagnate or declining for the past 30 years. Hospitals pay a little better than agencies or home health but not that much better in this area. The hospital lobbies are very powerful. Home health and hospice are poor and have seen their reimbursement rates slashed to draconian levels starting under Clinton and continuing until today. Nurses in these important areas have been working harder and harder just to stay in the same place for 20 years.

[Enthusiast]

209. There have been a bunch of

screwy ideas promoted since Reagan. Wealth = virtue, was one of the worst. When I hear Republicans whine about the "death tax" I want to ring their necks.

[laughingliberal]

215. +1 nt

[DissedByBush]

224. Wealth and virtue aren't related

There is no causal connection.

There is no connection between being poor and virtuous either.

But the death tax does need to be changed.

People shouldn't have to lose family businesses because they couldn't afford to pay half to Uncle Sam when grandpa died.

[laughingliberal]

237. I believe the amount which can be passed on with not taxes is now up to

$3,500,000. The maximum rate on amounts over that is, I believe, 48%. And, I'm not entirely clear on this, but I think I remember that a couple can set it up to pass on $7,000,000 exempted. Under these laws, I wouldn't think too many family businesses would be lost.

[bread_and_roses]

262. "Death tax." Another Randian, RW talking point. What nonsense

you're spewing. Try actually reading something instead of spouting RW, Libertarian voodoo economics for a change. I'll give you some help this one time, but you know, there's this resource called the internets and you could actually do some research yourself:

http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_Myths.html

[DissedByBush]

274. What else can you call it without making up euphemisms?

You get taxed when you earn income. Income tax.

You get taxed during a sale. Sales tax.

You get taxed when you die. Death tax.

Notice I didn't say it needed to be repealed. I said it needed to be fixed.

One of your sources kept saying "only 3 out of 10,000." Yes, that's 3 out of 10,000 getting screwed.

Use the same logic for the death penalty. It's okay if only 3 out of 10,000 are innocent.

My tax system shouldn't be screwing anybody.

[bread_and_roses]

281. You obviously don't even understand what the Estate Tax tax is and are just bleating RW

talking points. Those three are not "getting screwed." The estates are paying taxes - that were not payed during the deceased's lifetime.

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_Myths.html

Myth: The Estate Tax is unfair because it is "double taxation."
Fact: Unrealized capital gains, which form the majority of the value of the largest estates, have never been subject to taxation as income. Repealing the Estate Tax means that these gains would never be taxed. That’s unfair to those who pay capital gains taxes during their lifetimes.

And the comparison to killing someone is ludicrous. Paying taxes is NOT equivalent to being executed.

[DissedByBush]

284. NIce try, but

Capital gains, as it says, only form "majority of the value of the largest estates."

What about the smaller estates?

That still leaves plenty of people getting screwed.

Capital gains also often means appreciated family property. So what do we do in cases where there is a lot of property but not much cash?

[bread_and_roses]

287. "smaller estates" are unlikely to be affected by the Estate Tax, as you would know if

you actually did any research on it instead of spouting talking points like "death tax."

http://www.faireconomy.org/news/estate_tax_faqs

How large must an estate be to be taxed? Ӭ

Currently, the net value of an individual's estate must exceed the basic exemption of $2 million. Couples can exempt $4 million. This exemption level will gradually rise to $3.5 million for an individual ($7 million for a couple) by 2009. Small businesses and farms have long enjoyed additional protections.

Even if the numbers have changed somewhat since that was published - I'm not interested enough to go searching any more, you should do your own research, which you are obviously not interested interested in - the estate tax is fair. It does not impose an undue burden on families, small business, family farms, as the RWingers like to claim. If you want to cry over someone getting out of being taxes on "only" 3+M or so, go right ahead. You won't have much company. There is not a single responsible, progressive voice raised in defence of this "repeal the death tax" lunacy; the only one's who care about it are RW bots and the Oligarchs. Good company you're keeping.

[DissedByBush]

292. "majority of the value of the largest estates"

Look at the context. This implies this doesn't apply to the majority of the estates subject to the tax.

[Enthusiast]

267. DissedByBush,

no one suggested punitive tax levels that would destroy a family business. This kind of talk is being promoted by the ultra wealthy. I'm always saddened to hear someone on DU has fully embraced Reich Wing talking points.

No one wants a family to lose a business due to inheritance taxes and no one advocates such a tax level. The very term 'death tax' was a creation of wealthy reich wing extremists.

[Patchuli]

250. I am enthused by your post Enthusiast!

You got that right!!

[DissedByBush]

96. It's the opposite of what I see too often here

People think rich people don't work hard, just float on their money.

The fact is a lot of rich people work damn hard for that money.

BTW, you didn't provide jobs for 100 other people with your work hard work.

I think anybody who provides 100 good-paying jobs to other people deserves to be rich.

He could stop providing those jobs and the government would be out his taxes plus the taxes of 100 workers, and have to pay unemployment and probably welfare for those workers.

So given what he provides for people, the economy and the government, he deserves to be punished because he is successful?

He wasn't rich during Reagan. He was a dirt-poor kid then, so because some others got a tax break back then he should get reamed because he was born to late.

That makes sense.

[laughingliberal]

140. I never said rich people don't work hard but lots of people work hard

I have no problem with someone getting rich off hard work. I have a problem with those who got rich off their hard work getting all the tax breaks while those who did not get rich off their hard work not getting the breaks. The tax structure has favored the wealthy to a huge degree since the Reagan years. It is time to restore fairness.

[laughingliberal]

145. Or he could have been born in 1960

when the top rate was 91%. That said, there should be some reward for job creation. But the damn trickle down crap of giving the rich a break so they would create jobs for all of us has not worked. I'd be more than ok for some sort of break for every job created. But across the board low tax rates on everyone who earns 250,000 a year? No.

[proteus_lives]

191. My father owned his own company for 20 years.

He would be considered rich by many here.

He worked harder then anyone. He was always the first one in the office and the last to leave. He was hard but fair. And even though he was the boss, he was always on the road getting more contracts and deals for his company. He would never assign someone a task he wouldn't do himself.

[DissedByBush]

223. Sounds like my friend

He started the business by doing the stuff himself.

He had to hire people because there weren't enough hours in the day for him to work for the increasing client base.

Then he kept hiring more and more as business grew.

At some point he had to stop the basic work because running the business took all his time.

[anonymous171]

207. People get rich by leeching off of society. They pay more because they owe more. nt

[DissedByBush]

221. Wow, just wow.

That's a pretty broad brush there.

And all poor people are poor purely because they are lazy.

[anonymous171]

225. I didn't mean that in a bad way. Sorry about the word choice.

What I meant was that since the rich benefit the most from society (as evidenced by their immense wealth) they should have to pay more towards maintaining it.

[unpossibles]

98. and a lot more hard working self-made people make far less, in the 40-60K range

I'm sorry, but first of all, while I will not argue the value of hard work, good ideas, or good timing, the myth that rich (or even comfortably wealthy) people are where they are strictly through hard work is ridiculous. Most people who self-identify as "self made" also had the luxury of a stable middle class upbringing, public education, parents who helped them get to and through college, a society which gives education grants for good grades and other reasons, and all of the extremely valuable assets and networks which come from all of that. I know plenty of not-so-talented people who have great jobs because of the school they went to, a school which they had very little to do with other than being lucky enough to be born into a family with at least a little money.

Again, I am not dissing hard work or sacrifice as I agree they are important, but they are hardly a recipe for success. Most poor to middle class people also work hard and sacrifice but without the same result. many of them are quite intelligent and do manage to be somewhat upwardly mobile, but the vast majority of them are not going to end up rich, no matter what they are fed by Heritage Foundation junkies and Rush Limbaugh (the son of a rich lawyer).

[DissedByBush]

104. And when your hard work does pay off?

Do we reward or punish the success?

Obama had an easy ride, so that's not a good example.

Billionaire Richard Branson came from a fairly well-off family, but he is entirely self-made. He started off selling LPs out of the trunk of his car.

Then what do we do about people who invent valuable things? Dean Kamen is rich, but that's because he invented the mobile dialysis machine and the insulin pump. How much should we gouge him for considering the good he's already done for society?

[unpossibles]

107. please stop posting rightwing talking points

taxes are not punishing the successful. If you think they are, then you're buying the arguments of a fake plumber. Congrats.

Taxes are the price we pay for being in a society which has opportunities for said success. If you think you can be successful by yourself on a desert island, feel free to try.

[liberation]

163. Can you ask the mountain to stop the thunder? Can you ask the desert to stop being dry?

Then how can you ask a libertarian to not spew BS conservative talking points?

[unpossibles]

202. lol!

I suppose you're right. I must have gotten confused and thought I was on a liberal site for a second. My bad.

[DissedByBush]

226. The rich already get taxed more

Even at the same tax rate a person making $500,000 a year pays ten times as much as a person who makes $50,000 a year. In reality that person making 50 pays a much lower percentage, and possibly nothing if he has a family.

Question: Does the guy making $500,000 get ten times more in public services for his income tax money?

I'm not advocating making the rich pay a lower percentage, but this shows how making them pay a high percentage is simple class warfare, the many bleeding the few through force of law because they are greedy.

[TankLV]

235. You are fooling NOONE by your bullshit right wing phoney arguments masquerading as "fact"...

The FACT is that the top ONE percent OWN over SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT or more of the wealth of the country - THAT'S whay they should be paying A LOT MORE in TAXES!!!

[DissedByBush]

253. We're talking income tax, not wealth tax

The top 1% earns 19% of the income.

Of course the top 1% pays 37% of the income tax.

Of course if you'd like to just rush into their mansions, throw them out and take their money and possessions, then be my guest. It would be a more honest approach.

[unpossibles]

270. first of all, if you think that income tax is the whole picture you're fooling yourself

Sure they have a nominally higher rate, but they also have several ways to avoid paying tax on much of their income, and you know it. Our system is not nearly as progressive as you paint it.

Secondly and more importantly, NO ONE would be able to get rich from nothing (which most rich do NOT do, btw) were it not for the myriad social benefits of things which are funded by our tax dollars. Who the hell do you think built the roads and highways and train tracks, the companies which operate their private machinery on them, or us? Who the hell built the infrastructure which allows people to purchase and ship goods, all of which benefit both the consumer AND the seller. So despite whatever bootstrap pulling mythology you sadly worship, try becoming rich in a vacuum without said infrastructure, laws, consumer class, military security, federally-backed loans and countless other taxpayer-provided welfare. I'm serious. Go ahead. Find an empty island with no infrastructure or government and be sure to let us know how rich you get with no one to buy your wares, no one to protect you from scammers and hostile armies, no way to move your raw materials or end products no way to take orders remotely, etc.

[DissedByBush]

273. "Who the hell do you think built"...

From the looks of the tax base, the rich did.

Instead of being thankful, you want more.

[unpossibles]

276. congratulations on missing the point I guess. nt

[DissedByBush]

293. You don't think the rich pay their fair share

But they already pay most of the taxes, providing most of the services to you and me.

[unpossibles]

294. and you honetly think that they pay an unfair amount of taxes compared to their wealth

they pay the majority of taxes simply because they own a majority of the wealth.

The rates are higher for those with larger incomes. The implication is that our tax system is quite progressive.

But it doesn’t make much sense to look only at federal taxes. State and local taxes account for about a third of total tax revenues, and they tend to be less progressive than federal taxes.

If we take into account all taxes — federal, state, and local — the effective tax rate for the well-to-do is only a bit higher than for the poor. Here is one way to see this, based on data from the CBO and the Tax Foundation.

http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/01/05/how-progressive-are-our-taxes/

My larger point is that you have bought the Heritage Foundation rightwing bullcrap and are spreading it here without backing up a single thing you are parroting. If you look at the above graph, the middle class and upper middle class actually pay a larger percentage of their income than the top quintile does. You claim to be poor (sort of; you actually dodged the question when I asked you) yet are doing nothing but championing the rich. Are you Joe The Plumber?

[DissedByBush]

298. I believe in fairness for all

Even if they are not me.

I don't envy another's success.

I don't desire to take that which isn't mine.

I'm not greedy, covering the greed with a whitewash of "fairness."

As far as dodging your question, a number figure is useless. An amount can be considered poor in one locale yet fairly well-off in another. A good indicator is the one I gave you, which is adjusted for locale -- the point at which kids get reduced-price lunches. And I am a bit above that. Not poor, but not exactly rolling in dough either. My federal taxes are already extremely low, and I know it's because the rich are making up the difference. I accept it, but I would feel dirty asking for more.

[unpossibles]

302. fail. You obviously did not even read my posts or you'd realize that

the rich are not paying that much of a difference than the middle class or poor. Instead you trot out the same old propaganda. I'm curious: exactly how did Bush dis you? By not being conservative enough?

EDIT:
also, nice strawmen arguments about how because I think taxes are not inherently evil, I am greedy and wish to steal from people or desire what they have.

[DissedByBush]

305. The rich pay a lot more

The highest quintile pays 86% of taxes, and that went up. It went down for everybody else.

The top half of earners pays all but a few percent of taxes.

That sounds pretty fair to the lower half already.

As far as my diss, it's because I'm an atheist and Bush I thinks I can't be a good citizen or patriot because of it. The right's exclusion on the basis of religion means I can never be one of them, and good riddance.

[unpossibles]

308. this is like arguing with a brick wall

I provided a link which backs up my assessment that the rich do NOT pay that much more, that our system is not as progressive as you Reaganistas like to complain it is, and you come back with nothing. Not only did you not read my post but you don't back up your own.

[Flaneur]

115. Oh, Jesus Christ! Enough with your "poor rich people" meme!

They don't pay their fair share of taxes now. They can pay up.

Dissed by Bush, you say? More like inhabited by Bush.

[laughingliberal]

142. When my hard work pays off, I will gladly pay my share of the taxes and be grateful

I don't struggle for basic needs. I would gladly pay a tax rate of 50% on 250,000 a year. I would still be in much better shape than 25% on 75,000 a year. The trickle down policies did not work. Time to admit it failed and restore fairness to the tax system.

[patrice]

114. You know, nobody is talking about ruining them here.

Producing wealth DOES cost "the system" more. If everyone who is getting more out of the system paid something a little closer to the real costs of producing that wealth, I don't think that HAS to be too much of a burden to anyone.

And if a relatively reasonable increase were too much of a burden, wouldn't that indicate that the (now defunct) economic entity was never viable in the first place? If it can't pay a little more of it's fair share to sustain the systems that produce it in the first place, why should the rest of us tolerate it?

.............................

I have stood for several hours in a suburban shopping mall selling Macy's 15% off coupons for $5.00 each, with the $5.00 proceeds going to a non-sectarian charity. Regarding all of the "No"s: Whether people were going to use the coupon or not, you have to wonder if $5.00 made that much difference to them, what the hell were they doing at the shopping mall in the first place.

[fascisthunter]

128. I noticed that too, weird

taxing the rich equals persecution and ruin... but taxing a the poor and middleclass is somehow justified, even though it hurts the little guy while putting a slight damper on the rich lifestyle. It is disgusting to see people defend the rich from being taxed more.

[JoeyT]

147. But what about teh poor rich people?!

The free market demands we stop putting any burden at all on the rich. *sob* They're the producers! *sniffle*
Turn aside from your evil ways lest the prophet Galt ride from on high to destroy you all!
They'll take their toys and move to somewhere with lower taxes! (Where? The Middle East? Somalia?)
:banghead:

[DissedByBush]

230. Back to concrete examples

How does my friend cost the "system" more than me?

[unpossibles]

286. because your friend USES the system more

Assuming your quasi-mythological plumber friend is dealing with suppliers and vendors, they all use the roads and rails which were built by ALL OF US in order to make their business work. They use telephones, internet, and many other taxpayer funded government created systems every day. Without said system they would be completely incapable of their business without much more expense for their own infrastructure. Also, the wealthier among us tend to use more resources in general, which also means that they use the infrastructure which delivers and manufactures these resources as well.

[TankLV]

234. If you make over 100 thou a year, you're in the higher than top ten percent...

250 for a single person puts you in the top ONE percent!!!

Go peddle your bullshit someplace else...
!
That's not simply RICH, it's SUPER RICH!!!

most people would be happy to get by quite well on FIFTY THOUSAND...

If you can't get by on ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars per year, then I have NO PITY for you - YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING MAJOR WRONG!!!

[DissedByBush]

254. Check your stats

$100,000 puts you in the top 16%.

$250,000 puts you in the top 1.5%.

"If you can't get by on ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars per year ... YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING MAJOR WRONG!!!"

Or you're living in a high cost of living area. A three-bedroom house where I live can go for $900 a month rent. Easily triple that for many other places in this country. $100,000 doesn't sound like a whole lot when one third of it disappears for housing. But sometimes you have to live in those expensive areas to have the higher-paying jobs. The income tax doesn't consider that, does it?

[ChiciB1]

70. You Know, Maybe It's Not Those Who Make 250K, But There Are Plenty

of people who make a great deal more, and perhaps the figure could be raised, but still I would LOVE to even THINK about 250K! Not on my radar and never WILL BE! Everything does cost more these days, just going to the grocery store depresses me!

And NOW, before ANY bill is passed Insurance companies are clamoring to RAISE RATES! It REALLY does SUCK!!!

[niceypoo]

17. Rich = permanent wealth

[DireStrike]

19. The problem with straw man arguments is that they're so blatantly obvious.

[Nederland]

43. So true (nt)

[patrice]

116. False dichotomy. Oversimplified BS. Perhaps you live in a world in which the people you know reduce

complexities to BS, but that is not necessarily true of the rest of us.

[Flatulo]

126. Not really... most everyone I know thinks that they do not make enough

money. I used to see engineers sitting around in the shade sipping bottled water making $100K + and whining about the unfairness of it all because the VPs made $200K . Meanwhile, guys were up on the building smearing tar on the roof in 130 deg heat looking at us like we were princes. And further down the food chain were the maintenance crews making minimum wage looking up at the guys on the roof with envy because they made $20 /hr and had benefits.

[Flatulo]

129. And as exhibit A I offer the responses to this thread, in which nearly

everyone is proposing that someone other than themselves pay more.

[JDPriestly]

154. No. It is being defined very clearly in the OP.

If you cannot live comfortably on $250,000 a year, you need help -- from a therapist. If you aren't more than happy to pay extra taxes when you are earning $250,000 a year, you need to spend some time helping the homeless or the mentally disabled and get a more realistic perspective on life.

[Flatulo]

157. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you make less than $250K.

Everyone is so generous with other people's money.

[JDPriestly]

168. I and maybe more than 90% of Americans make less than $250,000

If you make that much money and don't want to pay a higher share of taxes in order to make sure that every American has the same healthcare that you enjoy, you need to rethink your values. There is something wrong with you. You have a sick heart.

[Flatulo]

173. I make $90K w/o benefits. I used to make $125K w/benefits, but

I got laid off in May and have joined the ranks of the great unwashed as a temporary worker. No benefits, no sick time, no disability, no nothing. Just an hourly wage subject to immediate and unannounced termination for any reason. I got the temp job right away because I am a pretty talented engineer.

Having said that, I have a son in private college that sets me back $4K per month, but I live within my means and drive a 9-year old car. My only vice is fine cigars However, I do spend right up to the limits of my income and have to dip into savings occasionally.

It just irks me to see so many people here assuming that people who DO make that kind of money somehow came about it in an immoral fashion and somehow need to give back even more than they already do, which is more than everyone else. That is a very flawed premise.

I also think it's ridiculous to assume that $250K is so much money that one would be happy to give more of it away to help his fellow man. Depending on where you live (I live in MA), this is not very much money and in fact is pretty typical for a 2-income family.

And yes, I do believe that there is some threshold of pain beyond which people will cease to do whatever it is that makes them worth so much money. I don't think it's the current rates, but is 90% too high? Yes.

[JDPriestly]

279. $90,000 is not rich. Nor is $125,000 per year. You are not

someone who should be paying more taxes. Don't get so upset. I live in L.A. where I see real wealth. It's pretty disheartening because in certain enclaves the wealthy spend like drunk sailors. Whereas the rest of the people struggle. You must understand that I worked on a homeless project for a number of years. I later worked with families who struggle in these difficult times to make ends meet. I had a job in which I saw people's financial situations very clearly. It was extremely troubling. Even people who make good money are in tremendous trouble. One of the main problems is that middle class people bear an unfair burden with regard to educating their children. A person in your income bracket has a tough time paying for college tuition. If you had an income of say $300,000 per year, it would be much easier for you. You are not rich. Far from it.

[Flatulo]

283. Thanks for the insights. I do feel extremely fortunate to make the money

that I do, and we want for nothing. I have a crappy house that I paid $130K for (it's paid off) in a town of $500K + homes.

I do support a progressive tax code - I just get a little pissed when I see some people getting so gleeful about putting the hurt on people who have created jobs and tax revenue. I am fine with a hefty inheritance tax, but people don't realize that many small business owners are simply not rich!

Oh yeah, and since I live in MA, I have to buy a $1400/mo insurance policy.

[JDPriestly]

288. The problem today is that the people with money are creating jobs --

in China, India, the Philippines, etc. but selling their products (or attempting to) to Americans on credit not backed by income. That trend will continue until somehow the money is invested in the U.S. so as to produce jobs that allow Americans to continue to participate in world markets both as buyers and sellers.

If those who have discretionary money to invest do not create jobs in the U.S., the American people through their government will repatriate the money as taxes on the rich. And it is not just the U.S. If you recall, European leaders joined the U.S. in calling for repercussions against the tax havens in which the very rich shelter their money from taxes.

It isn't right or wrong. It is just human nature. Americans want to work. And we will create a society in which we have jobs whether we do it through our tax policy or some other means.

I expect some sort of tax rise for those in high income brackets accompanied by tax cuts for businesses that (and people who) create jobs in the U.S. There will very likely be legislation favoring small businesses. That's just the scent in the air right now.

The government cannot effectively create the kinds and quantities of jobs needed. But it can use taxes to motivate job creation in the private sector.

[Flatulo]

289. I think you've put this very succinctly. The tax code should be

used to reward good behavior and discourage short-term profit in favor of long-term profit.

We've definitely gone off-course. I'm in my fifties, and I recall as a child my father cared for his wife and three kids on a custodian's wages. Can you imagine trying to raise a family on minimum wage? We were piss poor, but we were fed and clothed and needed no charity.

[JDPriestly]

290. Similar experience here. Of course, we had one car. My mom stayed at home

and sewed and cooked and saw to it that we studied.

We had less in some respects, but we had much more in many others. We certainly were no poorer than people are now although we had only one income. My mother did not need a car since we could walk to and from school and even buy some of our groceries without a car. All of these things have changed -- for the worse.

We have the internet now but we had time to read back then. Today we have computer games for the kids. Back then we played checkers and chess and monopoly. It was just as much fun as the computer games of today.

It's a little more expensive to buy products from a small local market. But -- back then we could do without the second car and save more on car upkeep and gas than the extra we spent. Plus the people who owned the small local market had an independent way of earning a living.

[Realityhack]

272. The article and poll sited specific figures.

"The House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.

The poll tested views on an even more punitive taxation scheme that was under consideration earlier, when the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed."

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

10. Roll back the Reagan Tax cuts.....

and this Country will take off. That money will fix more than just health care. Save what's left of the dwindling middle class.

[dana_b]

49. yep

that would be ideal but I can't see it happening.

BTW - welcome!! :hi:

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

179. Thanks

Have been a loyal reader since at least 2003. Decided now is the time to get vocal. Been listing to other blogs, but this one is the best for getting the "Word" out.
Nice to be welcomed. Thanks again.
This country is in trouble, big trouble, no secret. I own a service company located in Oakland County Michigan, A repub stronghold. I get into peoples homes are try to relate to them on a one to one basis.
Lately I hear and see such vitriol against everything this administration even thinks.
The voices come from both, liberal and conservative. People are arming themselves. They are preparing for a revolution, or at least for insurrection.
We need to come together, all of us, matter not your beliefs or political leanings. This country is not ours any more. We have had a coup d'état we don't even realize. Corporate interests have taken over.
Don't believe... Look at Obama. Voted for him so don't flame. Drank the kool-aid and still lick my lips cuz it tastes so good. We as the middle class do not stand a chance to exist.
Oh, we write on the blogs, we talk our stuff at the water cooler, but we just can't really believe anything we do, won't mean a damn. We are blinded by our own arrogance.
We need to convince EVERYONE we have been taken over.

[SammyWinstonJack]

79. That is what should happen but don't hold your breath on that.

The millionaires in Congress will never raise their tax rates. :silly:

[Igel]

81. I haven't seen any recent numbers for the size of the middle class.

Last ones I saw were from 2004 or so, and they showed the middle class shrinking precipitously. This got a lot of publicity and sort of set the frame--since then it's been standard fare that the middle class has been shrinking. It's also been standard fare that for those moving out of the middle class the situation is truly, truly dire because the only place they could go was down.

Of course, the infamous chart of the relative proportion of the middle class in US society also also showed the numbers of those below the middle class were shrinking or holding steady. In an innumerate society headed by an innumerate press corps and political class the unambiguous implication was, of course, diligently overlooked.

Then again, my psych textbook authoritatively stated that the definition of obese was having your BMI at the 95th percentile or above for when when compared to those in your age/sex cohort, and then scandalously indicated that 16% (or was it 19%?) of teenagers fell into that category. Then the writer moved on, oblivious to the fact he just said that 16% of teenagers were in the top 5%. You'd expect a prominent psychologist and researcher to know at least some statistics.

[aquart]

190. Call it: The Return to the Eisenhower America, a Return to Victory.

Packaging is important.

[marshall]

11. The rich are America's greatest untapped resource

The Rockefellers alone could provide healthcare for Vermont or New Hampshire.

[WriteDown]

13. Really?

The Rockefellers make that much income per year that it could be taxed enough to provide healthcare for Vermont and New Hampshire? :shrug:

[marshall]

29. $110 billion ain't chump change

The latest estimate for New Hampshire is $1.2 billion over ten years to reform the state's healthcare system. That could very easily be taxed out of the Rockefeller family's vast (and largely invisible to the public) assets and income.

[WriteDown]

30. They make 110 billion a year?

Wow!

[Nederland]

46. No it is not

But quite frankly I think the Rockefeller family probably spends the money more wisely than our government would.

[Yupster]

54. That there is the problem

The truly rich make very little taxable income. The people who make $ 300,000 or $ 400,000 are often hard-working first generation small business owners.

The truly rich (the Kennedys, Rockefellers etc) have their money in trusts, foundations and land, and actually pay little in taxes since their money is tax protected.

People can't seem to see the difference between income and wealth.

[WriteDown]

56. Thanks!

I knew someone would get it.

[bdamomma]

14. of course I would like to see them struggle for a change

[sui generis]

16. Actually, if we just get rid of the poor we'll solve everything

[DireStrike]

18. Under fire from ORGANIZED LABOR?!

What the FUCK.

[cmd]

26. Depends on how the rich is defined

Organized labor is against taxing the fantastic health care plans that workers like the retired coal miners have. Those retired workers are not rich. Labor is not against taxing people who make over 250,000 per year.

[ieoeja]

166. I believe the "approach ... being weighed in the Senate" is the "Cadillac plans".

That was my first reaction as well. But then I noticed "That approach is being weighed in the Senate" immediately following the taxing insurance proposal. So I think the "it" they are fighting is that one, not the idea of restoring an income tax bracket.

[DireStrike]

229. Ah, you are right. I misread it.

Thank you!

[newtothegame]

21. If we're all gonna use it, we should all pay for it.

If we want .1% of the population to bear the entire cost of something that 100% of the population is going to use, then don't be surprised when the entire system is tailored to the .1%. As it should be, if we're going to force such a small percentage of us to pay for something for ALL of us.

[laughingliberal]

34. The tax cuts passed for the wealthy only benefited them

and adversely affected our entire economy. Bush' tax cut wiped out the surplus Clinton left us in one fell swoop. Before Reagan, there was economic mobility in the working class. After 30 years of cutting the top rates, the working class has stagnated and now fallen behind. Western civilization has a long tradition of progressive taxation. We see the results of America moving away from that tradition and they are not encouraging.

[dana_b]

53. exactly! everything has been tailored towards them for the last

30+ years so why shouldn't they pay for a large majority of this? Either that or, as someone else said up above, roll back the Reagan tax cuts.

[gorfle]

63. EXACTLY!

If they would just make a goddamn PUBLIC OPTION that EVERYONE WOULD WANT TO USE INSTEAD OF PRIVATE INSURANCE, They'd have every insured person in America signing up tomorrow. Tack on an extra 3% on their premiums to help pay for people who can't afford insurance.

Done. Win-win for everyone.

Instead, we're just going to expand Medicaid to cover more poor people and go plunder some people to pay for it. We'll end up with higher taxes, no substantial change in the health care system for most of us, and a lost election.

[patrice]

119. 1+++++++++

[patrice]

118. Yes! Let me put my insurance premiums into Medicare! nt

[fascisthunter]

125. the majority already does

it's the damn selfish greedy rich who don't. Who the hell do you think pays for everything(wars, infrastructure, the Commons, oh and let's not forget bailing out Wall Street.

The rich pay nothing compared to the common man.

[anonymous171]

196. So we should only be taxed for the gov't services we use?

Wow, it's like I'm on FR or something :crazy:

[newtothegame]

266. What's your argument, we should only be taxed for the government services we DON'T use?

You argument doesn't stand the sniff test. And doesn't change the fact that all of us are going to use the healthcare system, in fact us poor will probably use it even more than everyone else, yet most of DU is clamoring for .1% of the population to foot the bill for the whole thing. And again I'm saying, if you insist on putting the entire cost on one group of people because you don't like that they're successful, don't be surprised when the healthcare system is entirely tailored to them. After all, they're paying for it.

[w4rma]

22. That is where all the money is, so that is where all the money has to come from. (nt)

[LynneSin]

27. dupe delete

whoops wrong person

[pattmarty]

23. Start taxing ALL religions/religious organizations. That ought to provide.............

..........a "couple" of dollars for healthcare, education and ALL the things religion is SUPPOSED to stand for.

[LynneSin]

28. Actually go after the 'corporate' churches not the small ones....

There are thousands of small churches out there that actually do good for the folks and would go under if taxed. And most of these churches do nothing more political other than "Go out and vote on Tuesday".

It's the corporate churches that should be taxed - The Catholics, The Mormons and all those tele-evangelists.

[pattmarty]

32. In order for it to pass constitutional muster, I believe ALL would have.....

.......to be taxed. You can discuss the "rates" (progressive as to size/income?), but I seriously think it's something to be looked at. Although, I don't think anyone will.

[laughingliberal]

35. Explain to me, in that case, how cutting taxes on just the rich

passed "constitutional muster." I didn't get a cut when Bush passed his tax cut for his class.

[LynneSin]

44. Thank you - I was about to post the same thing

it would be very easy to quanitfy both with size of church and with political involvement.

Some of the corporate churches get away with it by creating 'PACs' that are suppose to be separate entities (Robertson and Falwell each have them). In my opinion, if you can afford a PAC you can afford taxes.

[Yupster]

58. You should have

Those tax cuts created a new tax bracket -- the 10 % bracket. It was carved out of the 15 % bracket so everyone who paid income tax got a tax cut. If you only paid $ 100 a year in income tax, you may have only seen a $ 5 cut, but everyone who paid taxes should have seen a tax cut because instead of paying at 15 % you were paying at 10% on your first taxable income.

You may also have gotten completely taken off the taxpayer rolls because the standard deduction was also raised for each person.

[Raster]

176. Amen to that!

[Nederland]

47. Starting with the fake "Church" of Scientology (nt)

[anonymous171]

198. So let me get this straight. You would rather tax religions than the rich?

Jesus, I knew anti-theists had a conservative streak but this is fucking ridiculous.

[pattmarty]

265. No, let ME get this straight: Start taxing ALL religions AND re-instate...........

............the PROGRESSIVE tax rates pre Reagan. AND, I wouldn't consider myself your "made up" word of anti-theist. How's that for fucking ridiculous?

[valerief]

24. Increase the capital gains tax. That's a good way to get the REALLY rich.

250K income a year? Not rich. Maybe a million.

[laughingliberal]

36. 250,000 a year is not rich but could, likely, sustain a small tax increase

without falling off the edge. The taxes on people with these incomes and higher were cut under Bush. I don't recall those people being desperate before he cut their taxes. As I recall, most of the population was doing better when Bush first took office.

[patrice]

120. I know I was. It's been downhill ever since and my retirement investments have lost a lot of money.

[dysfunctional press]

301. we need to go back to the kind of top rates we had pre-raygun.

and to pay for a lot more than healthcare.

he SLASHED the rates, and as a country, we've been living on credit ever since.

[LynneSin]

25. And what's frightening is there is a small group of working class white folks...

who will go out there and do all they can to protest this tax even if it would never ever affect them.

Teabaggers are nutz!

[DissedByBush]

42. I can see their reasoning

"do all they can to protest this tax even if it would never ever affect them."

Whites marched with blacks in the 60s. Were they nutz? The Jim Crow laws didn't affect them.

Probably every straight person here supports gay rights. Are we nutz? The laws and discrimination against gays don't affect us.

[LynneSin]

52. sorry you can't even compare there

Marching to give someone equal rights affects everyone because who knows what we will discriminate against next. I was born white so I should have advantages, but I'm female, I'm a bit overweight and at one time people mocked me because my skin was too pale. (go figure). One day there may be something about me that will cause discrimination and I would want to know that we have created civil rights that will include everyone. I wasn't alive to fight for the rights during the Civil Rights movements back in the 60s but I'm alive today and gladly will fight for the civil rights of the GLBT community.

Paying your fair share in taxes is just common sense and yet it seems time and time again the republicans will bend over backwards in order to accomadate the extremely wealthy. What bothers me is working class folks who fight for the rights of the superrich even though it would NOT be in their best interest to do so. And all those teabagging protest look to be about 95% white folks.

[DissedByBush]

88. It's an exact comparison

The question was why would people protest to support a class they don't belong to.

The fact is a lot of people protest to support classes they don't belong to because they don't think what's being done to that class is right.

[unpossibles]

101. are you for real?

So you're saying that belonging to a minority class which does not get equal rights under the law, seldom gets the same pay for the same work, and has been the direct recipient of violence and discrimination within our lifetimes is the same as belonging to a minority class which has all of the breaks and which society caters to?

Can you remind me again please when rich people were not allowed to vote, were enslaved, were lynched or beaten to death, or were not allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital? I seem to have missed that part of American History.... Shit, even under the now-inconceivable tax rates from the middle of the century, I'd hardly say that the wealthy were in any sense of the word discriminated against or were the victims of society, and anyone who can is completely full of shit.

[DissedByBush]

220. Failure to grasp the concept

The isn't about equivocating struggles.

The question is why would people defend a class they don't belong to.

The statement was that to do so is nuts.

I gave examples of other people who defended classes they didn't belong to.

Feel free to say they were nuts.

[patrice]

121. Definition of "affect", please.

[liberation]

156. Your logical dissonance is glorious but not as impressive as your intellectual dishonesty.

Thanks for exploiting examples of basic human decency to further your myopic fiscal policies. There is no such thing as going too low for you libertarian types, is there?

[anonymous171]

200. The rich aren't paying their fair share to society and are using their power irresponsibly

THEY ARE THE OPPRESSORS, and so we are justified in annihilating them (through taxation.)

[closeupready]

31. In a modern America where hunger is growing and bankers make record bonuses courtesy of the taxpayer

I'm afraid there is simply no other justifiable way to go.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[stray cat]

40. If someone decides you and I are rich relative to the homeless should we pay?

People love taxing the rich unless somehow it starts to include them. Kind of like taxing cadillac plans for health care until it becomes clear if you have health insurance from work it falls into the cadillac group and you may own another 4000-8000 or so in taxes

[laughingliberal]

60. It is quite clear, when talking of taxing the rich, most of us are referring to the ones who have

had their taxes cut many times since 1980 while those making 30,000 to 65,000 have had their taxes raised 8 times and received one small cut in 1997. During the campaign Obama was clear about whose taxes he intended to raise: those making 250,000 per year. High time he did it, too.

[unpossibles]

102. I'm sorry but the straw from your argument is getting in my eye. nt

[fascisthunter]

123. we already do pay our share percentage wise

and that percentage has much more of an effect on us than it does the rich.

[anonymous171]

197. Cry more. The rich should shut up and pay. If they don't, they can have fun in jail.

Time to stop playing soft ball with these fuckers. Tax 'em or jail 'em.

[Mari333]

45. cut defense dept spending by 2/3 ,stop both wars, tax the rich

and we will be sitting pretty.

But Congress is beholden to wall street and kickbacks. dont hold your breath waiting for those whores to do anything.

[Nederland]

51. Cut defense dept spending by 2/3?

Do you realize just how many jobs you would kill doing that? Jobs across the entire economic sector: rich executives, upper middle class engineers, lower class soldiers. I can't think of a better way to ensure that a broad spectrum of the US population would hate the Democratic party for a generation.

[Mari333]

61. not if the money were rerouted to create jobs

that had nothing to do with the military. a public works program.
dont worry, it wont happen. we like being a military empire and killing machine too much.

[Nederland]

75. It wouldn't be that smooth

A 50 year old engineer working for a defense company is not going to like having to go out and find another job--especially when there is no guarantee it would be in the same place at the same pay. You are right though--it's never going to happen. I guess the best you could hope for is an absolute freeze on defense spending that let's the number decline slowly over 25 years or so as inflation whittles away at it.

[patrice]

124. Hey there some of us who have been told to do that more than once already and no one broke a sweat

about it except us.

We got over it, so can others.

We have been spending close to 50% of revenues on military for at least 10 years; lets make that 35% of revenues and put the difference into economic stimulus, especially for small manufacturing entrepreneurs.

[SOS]

93. Defense spending and jobs

Defense spending:

1999: $257 billion
2009: $706 billion

Unemployment rate:

1999: 4.2%
2009: 10.3%

Defense spending nearly triples and unemployment soars.

[Nederland]

171. Oh please

Correlation is not causation. Everyone knows that our current economic crisis was caused by idiotic banking practices, not excessive defense spending.

[Flatulo]

269. Thank you. nt

[laughingliberal]

50. The Revenue Act of 1964 lowered the top rate from 91% to 70%

I really don't see the world ending if we restore the top rates to Reagan era levels. During most of Reagan's years the top rate was 50% (1982 to 1986). The top rate today is 35%.

[Nederland]

57. The problem isn't the rate

Its the deductions. Even when the rate was 91%, the rich didn't actually pay that. Keeping the rate where it is now and getting rid of the deductions would raise more than enough money, and has the bonus of being more politically palatable. Polls show that people react much more positively to "eliminating deductions for the wealthy" than "raising tax rates". So long as you keep the deductions that the middle class uses (child credits, mortgage interest, a couple others) you'd have a proposal that would raise lots of money and still look good with the American people.

[laughingliberal]

64. Might work. While we're at it let's resore the deductions Bush I did away with that mostly benefited

the middle class. Anyone remember we once could deduct interest on credit cards and car loans? Anyone find it interesting that the interest we see on credit cards today would have been illegal back when interest was deductible?

[naaman fletcher]

69. Yes but..

nobody really paid those high rates. They were very easy to circumvent.

I have no problem repealing the Bush tax cuts, but (and I will catch flak here) anyone who doesn't think a 70% marginal tax rate will kill the economy is nuts.

While I can't stand Wall Street greed anymore than anyone else here, your average guy who makes 250K per year is not Wall Street. He's a small business man who busts his ass 16 hours a day, and he simply won't do it if you take 70% of his money.

Average millionaire drives a pick-up truck, by the way, not a Mercedes. The issue though is that the average millionaire is not a total douchebag, so you don't even know he's a millionaire, you just see the wall street assholes who show-off.

There's a reason for that. The average millionaire earned his money and is proud of it, and doesn't need to show-off. The average Wall Street guys know deep-down that he doesn't deserve his wealth, so he displays it so he can feel successful.

/IMHO

[laughingliberal]

73. Marginal rates much higher than 70% did not kill the economy

The marginal rate was much higher than that, at times, in this country. Funny, those were the years there was some mobility in the working and middle classes.

Here's a link to the historical top marginal rates in our history:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php


Tell me we weren't doing better in the decades where the rate was higher. BTW check out the top marginal rates in 1928 and 1929. Just interesting to me to see a high rate in 1918 which began to be cut until it was down to 25% in 1928 and 1929. Now what is it called when we keep falling for the same trickle down crap and expecting a different result?

[naaman fletcher]

113. My point is..

That almost actually paid those rates. It was very very easy to shift excess income into tax shelters. Most of those tax shelters are gone now.

[laughingliberal]

160. And no one has suggested a return to those rates

What has been suggested is a return to the rates under Clinton. I would favor a rollback to the rates under Reagan which were a little higher. The point is we were sold (and by 'we' I mean a lot of the American people) on the idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy would increase prosperity for everyone. It hasn't worked. Time to rethink Milton Freidman. It was always a gimmick and it did not work.

[naaman fletcher]

177. umm..

Yes, throughout this thread people are advocating 70 and 90% tax rates. The idea that cutting taxes increases prosperity is true to a certain point. The Laffer curve in theory makes a lot of sense. If you have a 100% tax rate, not only does the government not collect any money, but everyone is poor because nobody works. Same with 99..98..97%, etc. When the marginal tax rate of 70% was brought down, tax revenues did in fact boom and the economy did as well.

The problem today of course is that we are on the other side of the curve. We are at the point where cutting rates does not increase revenue. So I agree 100% with returning to the rates under clinton, and maybe they could even be higher than that, but I am completely against the 70% rates that many here advocate.

[onehandle]

55. Hey! They stole my idea!

I posted just the other day here to 'tax the rich to pay for health care.'

I'm pretty sure I was the first one to think of this. I hope I get credit.

[naaman fletcher]

59. Tax the Churches

I don't care what people want to believe, but if you ask me it is total bullshit that they pay less in property taxes than everyone else.

[ensho]

65. agree - at least take back the break smirk gave the rich

nt

[ChiciB1]

67. Well, I THOUGHT That Was One Of Obama's Big Issues When He

was running. I went to THREE of his rallies and EACH TIME he spoke emphatically about this! It was one of his HUGE battle cries and what made most people get up and stand and shout!

WHAT HAPPENED???

[laughingliberal]

71. Let's not forget cutting taxes on the rich was sold as a boon to the economy

The thinking, from the days of Reagan, was we would keep taxes low on the rich and they would, wildly, invest and create jobs for all. Everyone would prosper!

With apologies to Dr. Phil, How's that workin' for you?

Supply side economics is a failed experiment which has hurt us all. Time to ditch it and return to sane tax policy.

An answer President Clinton gave to someone years ago who asked about cutting taxes on corporations to stimulate job growth has stayed with me all these years. He explained we had done that but gotten no job growth. He said he would favor it if there was a way to tie the tax cut to job creation. I thought that was brilliant. What we have done is handed the treasury over to corporations and the upper classes and 'trusted' them to use it to benefit all. How stupid are we?

[unpossibles]

105. thank you! I have no idea how people have become so enamored of voodoo economics

to the point where it went from being ridiculed in public to people thinking there is no other way to do things.

The only thing that trickled down in supply-side economics was the shit and piss falling on all of us.

[barbtries]

74. i'm for that nt

[superconnected]

76. Sounds like a RW propagandist news reporter to me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

78. Tax the rich? Don't be nasty. That 'd be class warfare!

[change_notfinetuning]

90. And the White House (Rahm) would never go for it. n/t

[undeterred]

84. Stick it to the rich.

I like it.

[Steerpike]

94. ok Individuals who make over 500 k

And over that amount per year...and no loopholes for corporations...tax them....squeeze them till their gold fillings pop right out of their mouths...then redistribute the wealth to people like me!

[LuckyLib]

97. Most Americans cannot even begin to contemplete what really wealthy means.

Millions upon millions -- on top of all of the investment $$$$$, multiple residences all over the world, untold numbers of staff, vehicles, furnishings, luxury items. and the accountants and attorneys to manage it. Just think Bernie Madoff multipled thousands of times over. It is no accident that most of us severely underestimate what "being rich" really entails. They travel in tight circles, not generally visible to us "little people". Tax 'em til it hurts.

[ooglymoogly]

106. It would be nice to think the redistribution of wealth upward, has reached

a saturation point,now that all the money has been stolen and has found it's way out of the country; A redistribution of wealth downward will begin. But that may just be pie in the sky since laws have been passed in the middle of the night to protect that theft and render the thugs blameless.

[mamaleah]

99. In countries that do have public option, doesn't EVERYONE pay into it?

I am pretty certain our family members in Vancouver are not considered rich by an means, yet they pay into BC Care from their pay checks.

Why in the US is it always eat the rich? It's as dumb as republicans who hope for race wars.

[mainer]

111. Yes, they do. Universal coverage means universal participation

And those who have no jobs get their premiums covered by the government.

[Zodiak]

137. Because wealth disparity is greater here than it was in the Robber Baron period

Or have you not noticed that the rich have been warring with the middle class and poor for 30 years now? This didn't happen in Vancouver, you know.

Do not insult our intelligence by comparing the VISIBLE, TANGIBLE destruction the rich have wreaked on this country for three decades with some puke masturbatory fantasy about killing black people. The rich have brought this country to its knees, and it is time to pay the piper for their overindulgence.

[mamaleah]

188. There are plenty of filthy rich people in Canada and plenty of poor

And yes, everyone who has a job pays into it.

[Zodiak]

268. Ah, but are the democragphics as skewed as they have ever been?

Because that is what we have here in the states now.

To argue that the deserving rich are just being picked on while ignoring this income disparity speaks of serving the "ruling class" to me, and so I responded.

[anonymous171]

201. "Why in the US is it always eat the rich?" Have you been asleep for the past 60 years? nt

Or do you live in an alternate dimension where the rich are benevolent kind people who are being oppressed by the evil masses?

[mamaleah]

204. I do not view all wealthy people as evil.

Why would I? They all are not. There are plenty of good and bad people in all classes. Not every poor person is the most wonderful person either.

Again, other countries that have a public option require everyone who is employed to contribute.

[Oldtimeralso]

117. K & R and proud to help union solidarity.

The wage stagnation has been paralleled the demise of organized labor. What little non-public sector of organized labor has had a difficult time holding on to the full benefits that the past members had enjoyed. In just two years my wife has had to go from zero employee contributions per month to $207.00 per month. At the same time co-pays have increased by 500%, out of network payments are now 65% reduced from 80%. A life time limit of 1,00,000 pay out was imposed, this had been in place but in the past plan it was reestablished by 1,000,000 per year up to the 1M cap, now if you use it up too bad. I suppose this is one of those "Cadillac" plans.

[lib_wit_it]

131. This idea has been on my mind ever since, or even before when, way back in October, this question...

was on my mind: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=485749&mesg_id=485749

Duh! YES--tax the motherfuckers! I thought Joe the Dumber was right in accusing Obama of planning to redistribute the wealth, but I'm still waiting...

[defendandprotect]

133. About time -- add my vote to that . . .

of course, capitalists will still owe us for the joy ride they've been on --

the corruption -- and the destruction . . . pollution of our environment as a

regular part of their doing business -- damage to species -- and destruction of

Global Warming!!!

[and-justice-for-all]

136. I am also more than happy to pay my share..

I would take a mild tax increase to help pay for health care.

[old mark]

138. To me, rich is anybody who makes as much as a mailman - I have never

made over $28,000 a year,and I have mainly been quite happy with that.

I have absolutely NO PROBLEM taxing people who make over $250,000 each year a few extra dollars - I doubt they will even notice it if it were not brought to their attention. If someone would get real health insurance for that little money, it could save their life. I don't see a problem with that - I am sure the rich person would still have more than enough to buy expensive cars and houses and clothing and take vacations, etc.

mark

[bamacrat]

148. Well when the Bush tax cuts end that will bring 1.3 Trillion back so that can pay for healthcare.

They need to be ended now but I think they are set to expire next year. on top of that raise it 1%. If a 3& reduction was 1.3 Trillion and extra one percent would be what another 300 billion. Works for me. But I agree with a graduated tax topping at 50% for those who make more than 20 million a year.

[TexasObserver]

158. Recommend

[liberation]

161. I am having quite the hoot watching the libertarian types in this site

coming up with all sorts of creative arguments trying desperatedly to turn the very rich as the victims in all of this. The gall of the paupers to demand some of their money back! Because if there is something I notice over and over and over, it is that when the "poor rich people" crowd bitch about the rich having to give up some of their money, they don't touch the fact of how they got to have all that money to begin with. As if it was created in a vacuum, and those greedy "poor" people somehow feel entitled to it, the gall!

[Flatulo]

246. Let's cut the buillshit here... this is all about jealousy and envy.

The people here who are sharpening their knives over the prospect of skinning the rich some more are just as greedy and selfish as those they condemn. They want to reap rewards that they did not earn. They want someone else to pay for things that they do not want to pay for.

They couch this envy in noble terms about 'social responsibility' and 'fair share', but they are very transparent to me.

There is just no way around this. So let's all just cut the bullshit, shall we?

[Psephos]

280. True words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not true. n/t

[JoeyT]

164. It's interesting...

It's interesting how every time anyone mentions *any* tax increase on the millionaires and multimillionaires it kicks off an instant wailing and gnashing of teeth. Even suggesting a 5% tax on people that make over 10 million a year will instantly be declared "class warfare" and "punishing the risk takers".

Shall we consider that they put a greater burden on the infrastructure?
Shall we consider that government projects disproportionately benefit the rich?
Shall we consider any uptick in any market anywhere benefits the rich more? (While the reverse isn't true. Down hurts the poor most.)
Shall we consider the wealthy have tax loopholes that regular people don't have access to?
Shall we consider the upper 10% are the very ones that keep crashing markets and trying to return us to a feudal state?

Nay, we shall not. We shall scream of free markets and throw Randian tantrums. We shall proclaim those people the producers. We shall consider all else to be leeches. We shall sob about class warfare. We shall quote Republican talking points. We shall make staunch Libertarians say in a horrified voice "Perhaps just a bit of regulation...". We shall complain of unfairness. We shall construct mighty strawmen of small businessmen making $100k when it's blatantly obvious people were talking about millionaires and billionaires.

The class war has been going on for a long time. Until now, all the salvos have come from the top and been aimed down. The idea of "Welfare Queens" were a good example of a large weapon launched downward to good effect. Suddenly the peasantry have started aiming pellet guns at the people that have been bombarding them for the last 50 years, and it's not to be borne!

No one wants to make rich people poor. That's not a desirable outcome. A desirable outcome is to leave them very rich while ensuring they pay their fair share in a system that's gamed to benefit them the most anyway.

[laughingliberal]

169. Very well put!

I feel like I've gone through the looking glass. I'm on a Democratic website arguing with people who are supporting the worst RW talking points of the last 30 years-the policies that led to the current crisis in our economy, the same policies which have driven workers' wages into the dumper over the last 30 years. It's baffling.

[anonymous171]

199. [phone] nt

[emmadoggy]

203. Perfectly stated.

:thumbsup:

[greengestalt]

165. A breath of fresh air

The rich elite simply take so much from the collective pot that most of our problems come from this.

[pleah]

167. K&R

[BREMPRO]

175. Duh!

not going to be an easy sell in the Senate though.

[totodeinhere]

180. Is their enough money in the pool of rich people to really pay for health care, or not?

Is that just another right wing talking point like so many other things we hear? I remember hearing somewhere that if we take 100% of the income of everybody who makes over one million, that still won't be enough. Therefore, we have to dip into the middle class to get enough money.

I don't know if that is really true or not. On the other hand, as long as the rich pay their fair share, I see nothing wrong with the middle class paying their fair share as well, whatever that is.

[beyond cynical]

183. Funny...

[RedCloud]

194. Just charge the megamillionaires $1,000,000 per yr per war or else

get your asses over there and fight for your own damn foreign assets with your own damn blood. Since we have two wars that's two million per yr now to avoid their service to their nation, of which they are severely past due.

[anonymous171]

227. 90% war tax. Good idea. nt

[anonymous171]

195. BUT DU'S RESIDENT WEALTH APOLOGISTS SAY EVERYONE SHOULD PAY EQUALLY!

Because flat taxes are progressive! :sarcasm:

[mamaleah]

205. Flat tax where?

Canada must be a really bad country. They make people who make minimum wage pay into the system. Ooooh. It doesn't have to be a flat rate at all. It can increase based on income. The point is, everyone contributes.

[L0oniX]

206. Since over half of congress critters are millionaires, taxing the rich will not happen.

[laughingliberal]

212. I will acknowledge your point but must remind you the House has already voted

to increase taxes on millionaires in their health care reform bill. I think the hindrance is not fear of their own taxes but fear of pissing off their big donors.

[oedura]

210. How about ending the wars while they're at it?

Strange how we never run out of money to kill people in other countries.

[Omaha Steve]

214. I haven't been on the net all day

I was very busy at work today. I come home to find this was the front page feature story. Thank you for all the comments.

OS

[brewens]

218. Didn't take long to hear the ol' tax on small business spiel.

I didn't catch who it was on Eds show. No one ever really shoots that down when I hear it and they could so easily, if they had time.
It's an income tax. If you get a $500k or more personal income, that is quite a small business you have.
Those small business owners that are in that range are not going to do anything that would hurt their business. They may be mad that they get clipped an extra 5 percent or so but they will just have to eat it.

[sam sarrha]

222. the GOP is a Cargo Cult.. they believe that wealth is th measure of gods favor of a man /Corporation

they believe that 'wealth' is the measure of how god favors a man/corporation, therefore... it is a sin against god to tax a rich man. it is also a sin against god to help a poor man, because god is punishing the poor man with poverty.

Dominionism has taken over the GOP..

[David Zephyr]

236. It's a no-brainer. Just do it.

.

[Canuckistanian]

238. Sounds like a mandate

Get 'er done.

[TankLV]

239. Complete, and total CREDIT FORGIVENESS!!!

Everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - would have ALL their debt wiped out and START AT ZERO!!!

That would produce a boom like nobody has ever seen - and at the same time strike at the HEART of those who've ALREADY made HUNDREDS of times over what the original loan was worth!!!

Imagine - ZERO DEBT for EVERYONE!!!

and I am utterly SERIOUS about this simple idea, too...

[Flatulo]

247. Got a credit card problem, I'm guessing? No problem, let someone else pay the bill.

Disgusting.

Absolutely disgusting.

[RoccoR5955]

248. tax the "Cadillac" owners, not the plans!

I mean, if you can afford a car that expensive, that is contributing to air pollution, and other pollution and waste, and is a health hazard in general, why not have them pay for health care.

[BrklynLiberal]

249. Come on you Democrats...DO IT!!!!!

[bread_and_roses]

260. Less than 2% of households have income over $250,000

last I remember reading. So, ignoring for the moment the difference between income and wealth (although - as one would expect - net worth tends to rise with income), yes, $250,000 is indeed "rich" by nearly anyone's standards.

And no, I don't care what the "cost of living" is for the $250,000 income earner. The people who whine about how the high cost of living means they are "not rich" seem to forget that the clerk at the dry-cleaners and the wait-staff at restaurants and the teachers' aides in their community also have to live somewhere - and they are not making $250,000.

However, the proposal cited in the article was for single earners over $500,000 and couples over $1M. Obviously, the Senate also believes that $250,000 is "not rich." So, someone want to tell us how $500,000/$1M ain't rich either?

[Flatulo]

263. FYI on small businesses in the USA

Many visitors from abroad are surprised to learn that even today, the U.S. economy is by no means dominated by giant corporations. Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees.

[Flatulo]

264. FYI on who pays what in federal taxes

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/

Interesting points:

1. The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected

2. Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes

3. The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return)
will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them

[Anarcho-Socialist]

271. The US public are well to the left of the Democrats on this issue

[SoCalDem]

296. Bad title..

"Reinstate fair taxation to pay for health care" would have been a more realistic title.

The rich have gotten a free-ride for 40 years. It's no wonder the country has gone to hell in a hand-basket during that same period.

What exactly have we accomplished as a nation in that time?

What have we created?

That era has been all about the "private sector", with all the benefits passed upwards to the people at the top, while the people at the middle & bottom, and been pushed further and further down.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

297. Many, many, many got rich because, over the past 30 years...

There has been a conscious effort redistribute wealth away from the middle-class and to the rich.

Socialists!!!! Where's Joe the Plumber! 30 years of Socialism!!!!

[KansDem]

303. Let's go one step further...seize their offshore tax havens!

Could be hundreds of billions there: just take it!

It's about time these crooks paid their taxes: I pay mine, why don't they?