To Save the Republic, Tax the Rich

[Joanne98]

by Robert Parry

For all the laid-off “Joe the Plumbers” who share the Right’s fury about the “class warfare” of imposing higher taxes on millionaires, there is this hard truth: the rich don’t need as many of you as they once did – and taxing the rich may be the only way to make the economic system work for you.

Indeed, the surplus labor of everyone from factory workers to bookkeepers is fast becoming the biggest structural problem facing U.S. society. Even an economic “recovery” is unlikely to put millions of unemployed Americans back to work, at least in any meaningful way.

That’s because in today’s brave new world of high technology and global commerce, many blue-collar and white-collar jobs can be done more cheaply through computerized automation or by low-cost overseas labor than by American middle-class workers regardless of how much retraining they get.

So, whenever the current recession ends, many Americans who lost their jobs or had to take severe pay cuts are not likely to make up lost ground. Unemployment and under-employment are almost certain to stay high, and those lucky enough to have jobs will have to work harder, faster and longer than before.

Already, most of us scramble to make ends meet, with fewer protections in the work place as unions shrink, with the 40-hour work week disappearing for many, with cell phone and e-mails putting us on call virtually 24/7, and with retirements postponed sometimes indefinitely.

This era’s great irony may be that those of us who grew up watching “The Jetsons” or similar representations of the future didn’t see this bleak future coming. We thought technological progress was going to mean more free time for the human race – to play with the kids, to read a book, to travel or to just take it easy.

Instead, technology has contributed to making our lives more slavish and more brutish, especially when job loss is combined with lost health benefits and endless pressure from bill collectors.

Yet, while the middle- and working-classes have seen the American dream recede, the upper stratum of the super rich have watched the benefits of the high-tech global economy flow disproportionately into their stock portfolios and trust funds, creating wealth disparities not seen in the United States since the age of the robber barons.

Continued>>>
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/21-7

[Nederland]

1. "The rich don’t need as many of you as they once did"

There in lies the problem. Tax the rich too high, and they are likely to take their money and leave. Then what will you do?

[DJ13]

2. Your opinion sounds like a GOP talking point

[JuniperLea]

4. +1... eom

[Nederland]

7. Your post sounds like a strawman (nt)

[DJ13]

10. "Any discussion of raising taxes on the rich......."

"......brings howls of protest from protectors of the elites."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/21-7
To Save the Republic, Tax the Rich | CommonDreams.org

[Nederland]

11. Very true

Funny how taking a person's money makes them howl.

But seriously, did you have a point? The reason we have so many rich people here in the US is because the US treats them so well. Take away that fine treatment and they will go somewhere else...

[DJ13]

14. But seriously, did you have a point?

That description fits people like you to a tee.

Cowtowing to the wealthy has never done any good.

Oh sure they love to use their defenders from the lower classes as a shield against getting them to pay their share of taxes, but they honestly dont give a crap about anyone below them in society.


"Prior to Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the top marginal tax rate (the percentage that the richest Americans paid on their top tranche of income) was about 70 percent. By the time, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993, the marginal rate was at 31 percent.."

“The average rate paid by the top 1 percent of households shrank from 33 percent in 1986 to about 23 percent in 2006. At the same time, the share of adjusted gross income claimed by that highest-earning sliver of American society doubled, from 11 percent to 22 percent.”

[Nederland]

15. My point is a practical one

It is completely possible to raise tax rates and not get any more money because a certain percentage of rich people leave. Do you deny that this can and actually has, happened?

[DJ13]

16. Your point isnt practical, its Republican fiscal conservative dogma

There are already a few countries with lower tax rates on the wealthy, so if they thought any proposed increase in taxes were too much (like going from 36% up to 39% :eyes:) they could have left long before now.

Our nation's greatest period of growth came after WWII, when the top bracket was 90%.

Our nations biggest declines, the Great Depression and today, happened as the top brackets were paying near historically low taxes.

No one is saying to return to the tax rates of that evil Socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower, but paying more taxes is a necessary evil in the current environment (not coincidentally, an economic environment made by those same wealthy people).

[Nederland]

17. More strawman arguments

The real tax rate was never 90%, and your ignorance of history is tiresome.

[JuniperLea]

19. Ok, so 65%

BFD... You're still wrong.

What this new tax hike would do is to ferret out all the money that is already being put in offshore accounts.

I worked in the home office of a third-generation billionaire, owner of one of the world's largest distilleries. Tell me how close you've ever inspected the monies of the wealthy so we can see how enlightened you are... :eyes:

[Nederland]

23. You miss the point

Taxes rates are not the issue. The fact is that the percentage of the federal budget coming from the top 1% has steadily increased over the past 30 years. As a result, the federal government is increasing dependent on the rich to fund its activities. When you are dependent on someone, you are their slave.

[DJ13]

26. the percentage of the federal budget from the top 1% has steadily increased over past 30 years

However, even the Post’s editors acknowledged that “a serious case be made that the U.S. income tax system should be more progressive.

“The average rate paid by the top 1 percent of households shrank from 33 percent in 1986 to about 23 percent in 2006. At the same time, the share of adjusted gross income claimed by that highest-earning sliver of American society doubled, from 11 percent to 22 percent.”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/21-7

[Nederland]

29. If you want to be a slave to the rich...

...be my guest.

[JuniperLea]

27. You are flat wrong...

Their taxes were much higher during the Reagan era than they are now. What is being proposed is far lower than that of the Reagan era.

[Nederland]

28. Learn to Read

I didn't say anything about tax rates. What I said is:

The fact is that the percentage of the federal budget coming from the top 1% has steadily increased over the past 30 years.

This is a true statement.

[bemildred]

30. So why haven't they all left?

Why, for that matter, would it be a bad thing if they all left? Why should the rest of us care if they all leave? Is that supposed to be some sort of "threat"?

[Nederland]

32. If they all leave...

...who is going to pay for government services? The top 1% generate over half the federal income tax revenue. If the rich leave, who will you get that money from?

[bemildred]

34. We will just print more, like we do now.

We could also, of course, decide to tax corporations, who really can't afford to ignore the US market. If Donald Trump wants to move to the Bahamas, that's OK with me, but if he still wants to do any business here, he still has to comply with US tax law. The threat to leave is an empty one, unless you are willing to burn your bridges; and in any case it is false premise that these people are special or not easily replaced. There are plenty of people who need jobs and are willing to work for less.

[Nederland]

37. Lovely

Just print more money. Excellent plan. Call me when the hyperinflation hits.

[bemildred]

39. Insults are not an argument. We are already printing boatloads of money.

We will already have hyperinflation.

[Nederland]

40. "We will already have hyperinflation"

Really? By what fantasy definition is -1.4% hyperinflation?

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/


Or perhaps you're saying it's going to happen anyway, so why not really embrace the suck?

[bemildred]

41. Nice chatting with you, it's clear you have no real argument.

It's true we might get deflation instead, that's what the fed is trying to fend off. But it's also true they have been buying their own "debt" for some time. There will be inflation, in fact there is inflation right now, it's just in prices and not wages yet.

[Nederland]

43. You really do live in your own world don't you?

in fact there is inflation right now, it's just in prices and not wages yet.

Newsflash: Prices are falling, not rising.

[bemildred]

45. LOL.

Have some more KoolAid, enjoy your fantasy while you still can.
:popcorn::popcorn:

[JuniperLea]

47. Hilarious!

[bemildred]

48. Scintillating argument, wasn't it?

[JuniperLea]

49. You're being so very kind!

I feel like I want to scratch the inside of my skull with a knitting needle inserted through my eye!

:rofl:

[Nederland]

53. You really need to stop

You are embarrassing yourself. I've posted links and charts from the Department of Labor showing that you are wrong. Just leave it alone. Any more denial posts from you just confirms in everyone else's mind that you are an idiot.

And just because I love the chart, here it is again:

[Nederland]

52. Ah, the beauty of Internet forums

Where people get to decide for themselves what the 12 month inflation rate is. Facts be damned! I know that that prices are rising and I don't care what the facts say!

Enjoy the dreamland sonny.

[JuniperLea]

31. And it's a GOP talking point...

That has no place here.

The rate percentage per individual has gone down; the number of individuals making above $X a year has risen. This is where people get confused, and this is where talking points like this get leverage.

[Nederland]

33. Ah, another strawman

Come back when you have an actual argument.

[JuniperLea]

35. You don't even know the meaning of the term...

Obviously. I gave you the full deal, and you are being willfully ignorant. Whatever. Your pulling the strawman card is more of a strawman than my argument.

[Nederland]

36. You don't have an argument

Your argument is basically: that's a GOP talking point.

That's not an argument. It's partisan hackery.

[JuniperLea]

42. Learn to read...

I made that statement, and gave you a valid answer... yet you stick to your erroneous statement of which you clearly don't understand the definition.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).<1> A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.<2>

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.<3> It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

Now, tell me how my last two responses to you fit this definition.

[Nederland]

44. I concede the point

I misused the term strawman.

Perhaps now you'd like to return to the actual argument?

Oh, that's right. You don't have an argument.

[JuniperLea]

46. Bullshit...

I gave you sound answers. Have fun... "ploink"

[JuniperLea]

3. And go where?

What is being proposed is far less than they paid during the reign of their Blessed King Ronnie.

Never forget that 2% of the world's population holds the lion's share of the money... something obscene like 95% or more of the money. They don't vote in numbers; they vote in dollars. This is where the rubber meets the road! This is where they continue to bribe the powers-that-be. Leave? Not a chance. The USA is the only idiocracy wealthy enough to satiate their insane, greedy desire for more money.

[DJ13]

5. +10!

:)

[Nederland]

8. Lots of places

It's a big, wide, flat globalized world out there, or perhaps you haven't heard?

Read post #6 for a list...

[JuniperLea]

18. They will only go where the money is...

And the entire world is flat broke, or haven't you heard?

And as for post #6, since when have offshore accounts meant someone left the US? That practice is as old as taxation itself. It has always been so and it changes nothing.

[Nederland]

20. True, they only go where the money is...

...because they bring it with them. Duh.

[JuniperLea]

22. The more you argue, the less sense you make...

They are interested in making more money; that's what this is about. What sense is there in what you said, honestly? Duh your own self! :rofl:

[Nederland]

24. I agree with your correction

They do not go where the money "is", they go where there is money "to be made".

[KansDem]

6. Take their money and leave? They already have taken their money and left!

:rofl:

A court filing Tuesday in Miami urges U.S. District Judge Alan S. Gold to enforce a summons against UBS seeking the identities of about 52,000 people. U.S. officials say those are mostly wealthy Americans who used secret UBS accounts to hide income from the Internal Revenue Service.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31667950/ns/business-world_business/

...and that's only one bank in one country. What about the rest of Switzerland? The Caymans?

Liechtenstein?

Hundreds of super-rich American tax cheats have, in effect, turned themselves in to the IRS after a bank computer technician in the tiny European country of Liechtenstein came forward with the names of US citizens who had set up secret accounts there, according to Washington lawyers investigating the scheme.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5378080

Tax the rich too high, and they are likely to take their money and leave :spray:

Reaganomics if dead. You must think you're talking to children out here in cyberland! But I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and assume you just forgot to use the :sarcasm: similie...

[Nederland]

9. Thanks for proving my point

Rich people have options.

[KansDem]

12. Yeah, and they opted to take their money and leave...

...long before Obama ever came on the scene, and certainly long before any mention of health care for all. They started leaving right after St. Ronnie cut their taxes!

"Trickle-Down Economics" became "Trickle-On Economics"

And don't forget: Any member of Reagan's Glorious Oligarchy who skipped/skips the country with his/her "Reagan Tax Cut(s)" is a fucking criminal and needs to be treated as such!

After all, Alphonse Capone wasn't imprisoned because he was ruthless Chicago mob boss...

[JuniperLea]

21. They are still here...

It's only their money that is offshore.

That's what this is all about... taxing that money. It didn't magically move offshore on 11/20/08!

Trickle down to trickle on... spot freaking on!

[KansDem]

25. "Trickle on"

I can't claim authorship. I believe it was Rep. Pat Schroeder of Colorado who coined that phrase!



Patricia Nell Scott "Pat" Schroeder (born July 30, 1940), American politician, was a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from Colorado, serving from 1973 to 1997. She was the first woman elected to Congress from Colorado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Schroeder

I once heard an interview with Ms. Schroeder in which she described the immense power of the committee chairmen. I forgot which committee she served on during her first year, but she told the interviewer that the chairman refused to allow the correct amount of chairs brought into the committee room, so she and another first-year representative had to share the same chair!

I wish we had more in the House like Ms. Schroeder! :patriot:

[Warpy]

13. This country has always had a genius for creating wealth

but has never known how to distribute it.

That has to change.

[FiveGoodMen]

38. K&R

[MISSDem]

50. Who are "the rich" What income bracket? Many "rich"

folks have been put out of their work.

[Fearless]

51. In this case based on yearly INCOME... a single person...

Making over 500k or a couple (federally a man and woman) who make 1M+ a year. Those who are considered rich in terms of this health care debate and the tax which may ensue.