Denver Post: Yes, the Rich Can Afford It, but Can We?

[No_Pressure]

Oh, and I forgot to respond to this. You are correct. It doesn't directly affect that issue. But it helps solve our fiscal problem.

My point is that the rich don't need protection from having their top marginal tax rate raised from 36 to 39 percent. They have all the assets, they are doing just fine, doing better every year thank you, and we need to get money from somewhere. Why not from the place where all the money is?

Without getting sucked into the whole tax thing too deeply, I think that a lot of wealthy people I know directly would probably accept the tax increase if it was also met with a spending decrease by the government. We are trillions of dollars in debt and the government needs money...so what do we do? Well the way I see it is you fix a problem like this 3 ways. You increase money coming in, and you are making up your debt at 50% speed. You keep taxes the same and cut spending, you're still at 50% speed. You increase taxes but also have the government spend money more responsibly and you're burning the debt rope at both ends.

This is my only real complaint at this point, I can put aside what I think is right or fair for taxing people's incomes, the government needs the help of the people right now, but I would bet its hard for a lot of people to get over the feeling that raising the income tax will only result in the government spending even more of their money frivolously. I would like to see a responsible government which saves its money and doesn't go off on some bull**** about needing to spend money to make money. Thats all fine if you don't have a massive debt hanging over your head. While I'm dreaming though I'd also like a space ship which I can pilot all over the galaxy to visit other planets.

[nonniey]

But by definition doesn't the coalition lose power (and members every time it attacks a different group).

Using your example, if they try and tax everybody over $100,000 more, then they are attacking everybody that makes over $100,000, which is more people than those that make over $250,000.

So the coalition doesn't grow as it tries to do more. It shrinks.

(which is essentially one of the basic concepts behind our government.)

No the Coalition has two method of growth. One the those making near the cut off line will eventually fall be low that line and second you can move the line a bit to continue to maintain or expand your coalition (the later has been happening) Lets say you have the bottom 50% in your coalition you just raise the line to grab up the bottom 60% or 70% and target the rest. Bottomline long term it is terrible policy but I guess good politics.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2010 at 07:26 PM ----------

Why is it "extremely damaging to the country to have [a progressive income tax system]?" Because it doesn't seem fair to you? That's not a very compelling argument.

Reread what I posted. I said the rate hikes don't have to be the same just that if there are hikes there need to be hikes for everyone (eg you if raise the rate on the top by 5% you could raise it for the lower ends by 1% or less but not 0).

[Henry]

I'll just color you as missing the point of the article. The problem is that it is easy to support tax policies/increases that don't impact you, which is bad policy.

Odd then to open up by quoting Warren Buffett supporting a tax increase.

[PeterMP]

No the Coalition has two method of growth. One the those making near the cut off line will eventually fall be low that line and second you can move the line a bit to continue to maintain or expand your coalition (the later has been happening) Lets say you have the bottom 50% in your coalition you just raise the line to grab up the bottom 60% or 70% and target the rest. Bottomline long term it is terrible policy but I guess good politics

1. What is the line? Is it "real" income (e.g $250,000) because if that's the case unless we have some serious deflation as a country we have been moving closer to the line for the last 50 years or so. If is percentage (e.g. the bottom 10%), then for everybody that falls below the line somebody has to be pushed above the line.

2. That's opposite what you said before. But by jumping up to grab those others, you have to move the line on those you are attacking so you are no longer attacking those that you want to grab. You can't simultaneoulsy pull the line down on who you are attacking (e.g. move from $250,000 to $100,000) and increase the size of your group (unless there is something else going on that is pulling down earnings).

[DjTj]

Bottomline long term it is terrible policy but I guess good politics.

If it's good politics to raise taxes on rich, why are Republicans taking a stand against this issue in the Senate (and likely to win)?

[endzone_dave]

I think that $250,000K mark that makes the government consider you weathly needs to be re-evaluated. A husband and wife who are both GS-14 governement employees in DC could be considered "wealthy" by our governement. That number has been in place for many years and magically hasn't increased along with inflation. As the years go by, it won't be long where more and more people hit that line.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I actually wouldn't mind seeing people on the lower end of the income scale pay more taxes. If I understand what I've read, many at that end of the scale don't pay ANY income tax. They can camp outside a WalMart and buy i-pads and HDTV's though.

As someone on the lower end of the income scales I just want to say: Go **** yourself, you ignorant, oblivious POS.

Bring on the ban. It was worth it.

[Kilmer17]

Raising taxes is easy as long as you're raising it on someone else.

If Congress came out and said "we are going to raise taxes across the board 10 percent for 5 years, but at the same time we're going to cut Federal Spending by 25-30 percent, and actually DO IT. The American People would support it no matter who made the proposal.

[NoCalMike]

30 years ago when Reaganomics was implimented it started a drastic shift in economic policy. No matter who has been the President since, they have embraced trickle down economics. Some like Regan/Bush/Bush II were of course more gung-ho about it, but Clinton and even now Obama when he rolls over next month have both been battered and beaten into submission in order to go along with it. When the majority of the power, money, and influence lies with a certain economic policy it is hard to reverse course.

Any effort to do reverse these policies is going to be met with millions of dollars of "speech" and influence to trash the candidate as a commieor socialist, when if you look at what they are proposing, it is very tame compared to what tax rates were prior to Reagan. I can only imagine what the right would call Truman/FDR in 2010 had they been alive to talk about their politics on cable news. People should go back and read transcripts or listen to their speeches. They were a lot more upfront about the influence that big business and corporate money was trying to inject into policy. Would you ever catch a Democrat using the term "Economic Royalist" in 2010, without being chased with torches & pitchforks?

Dems get accussed of Class Warfare, but in order to for that to be true, there has to be a group they are at war with, and so far for the last 30+years, that group has been winning and beating the Dems into bloody submission when it comes to economic policy.

The Supreme Court decision to allow all the undisclosed money into campaigns will only make things worse. More money was spent on this last mid-term election than the Presidential election. Our politicians are bought and paid for. Who's interests are they looking to serve, the guy who sent them $1.50 or the guy who owns multinational corporations that is worth billions.

Corporate Oligarchy here we come!

[DjTj]

I think that $250,000K mark that makes the government consider you weathly needs to be re-evaluated. A husband and wife who are both GS-14 governement employees in DC could be considered "wealthy" by our governement. That number has been in place for many years and magically hasn't increased along with inflation. As the years go by, it won't be long where more and more people hit that line.

Actually, the IRS adjusts the tax brackets every year due to inflation.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=187825,00.html

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=214320,00.html

The $250k number would also be indexed to inflation going forward if the Obama plan passes.

[Hubbs]

I think that $250,000K mark that makes the government consider you weathly needs to be re-evaluated. A husband and wife who are both GS-14 governement employees in DC could be considered "wealthy" by our governement. That number has been in place for many years and magically hasn't increased along with inflation. As the years go by, it won't be long where more and more people hit that line.

Hate to break it to you, but I think most people would say that if you make $250,000 a year, you're rich.

As someone on the lower end of the income scales I just want to say: Go **** yourself, you ignorant, oblivious POS.

Bring on the ban. It was worth it.

To be fair, GACOLB (and I hope you don't get a "vacation"), while I'm certainly in favor of a significantly progressive income tax, I do think it makes sense for everyone to have some skin in the game, so to speak, even if it's a really tiny amount of skin, like 0.5%. I think that because I believe it would make people educate themselves more about our government, and that would do more good than the tiny tax would do harm. And I know lower-income people already pay sales taxes and payroll taxes, but in my experience - and I've worked some pretty crappy jobs - people simply think differently about those than they do about the income tax. If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear your opinion, I'm sure you have good reasons for it.

(Although the tax plan I favor most is the FairTax, which would give everyone skin in the game while helping poor people the most, IMO.)

[NoCalMike]

The thing is, everyone, no matter how much they make is getting a tax cut on the first 250k, according to the Dems plan....it is just people who make over 250k will have the income beyond that raised.

[Mursilis]

Yes, that's called the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Ronald Reagan's people invented it. The idea is to craft your tax policy to make sure that it remains more profitable to work (even at very low incomes) than it is to just give up and go on welfare. If you tax a few dollars out of the lowest incomes, it brings in almost no revenue to the government, but it drives millions into welfare. This poilicy literally saves us billions and billions of dollars in welfare costs every year, and is on of the best ideas that conservative policy makers have ever come up with.

You know what would save us even more in welfare costs? No welfare!!

[Predicto]

I think that $250,000K mark that makes the government consider you weathly needs to be re-evaluated. A husband and wife who are both GS-14 governement employees in DC could be considered "wealthy" by our governement. That number has been in place for many years and magically hasn't increased along with inflation. As the years go by, it won't be long where more and more people hit that line.

I would agree when we are talking about Alternative Minimum Tax. That thing does not reflect reality at all.

However, at the same time, people who make 250k are pretty damn comfortable unless they are really, really stupid with their money. No two ways around it.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2010 at 03:29 PM ----------

You know what would save us even more in welfare costs? No welfare!!

I see. You prefer the "let them eat cake, starve in the streets" approach. How very Marie Antionette of you.

[AzSkinsFan63]

I would agree when we are talking about Alternative Minimum Tax. That thing does not reflect reality at all.

However, at the same time, people who make 250k are pretty damn comfortable unless they are really, really stupid with their money. No two ways around it.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2010 at 03:29 PM ----------

I see. You prefer the "let them eat cake, starve in the streets" approach. How very Marie Antionette of you.

So when you get finished with your tax return you push the button and say well I am doing my share to help the poor and down trodden?

[Fergasun]

The thing is, everyone, no matter how much they make is getting a tax cut on the first 250k, according to the Dems plan....it is just people who make over 250k will have the income beyond that raised.

You need to go back in time 12 months ago and give that talking point to the Democratic party. Strong, strong, strong talking point. Of course, the sad truth is there are enough Democrats who are Republicans on economic policy and believe in "trickle down" theory. Or they are bought off by the rich and know where their bread is buttered. If I were a Congressman I'd certainly cater to those who have the ability to pay me the most once I am booted out of office.

The guy on the hot mic last week who said "this is rigged" has it right. Everything in politics is rigged, yet we don't really know who is doing the rigging. We look at the parties and see what they do and get angry (or happy) but don't understand what forces are pushing them to do it. We can only conclude that it is the top 5% which are getting their way as pointed out above. Otherwise there would be some very strong, strong, strong talking points to counter all the lame talking points (like this BS editorial which is taken from some conservative/GOP template).

[Predicto]

So when you get finsh your tax return you push the button and say well I am doing my share to help the poor and down trodden?

Wait, what?

A limited social safety net HELPS people like me. It keeps me from having to step over starving people in the gutters. More importantly, it keeps the starving peasants from turning into an angry mob that rises up and takes away all my nice loot.

[AzSkinsFan63]

Wait, what?

A limited social safety net HELPS people like me. It keeps me from having to step over starving people in the gutters. More importantly, it keeps the starving peasants from turning into an angry mob that rises up and takes away all my nice loot.

nicely put..starving peasants..

my job is done here...

[Larry]

Raising taxes is easy as long as you're raising it on someone else.

Y'all keep making that false, sound bite, claim.

If it's so easy, how come it hasn't happened?

In fact, how come, in my lifetime, the top marginal tax rate has gone down 9 times, and up 4?

(Wow. I'm surprised. I thought the rates had only gone up once. And some of those increases, like, apparently, in '92, were quite a bit larger than the one we're talking about, here. Wonder why the sky didn't fall on '92.)

[Teller]

"Right now, the top 1 percent of earners pay more in income tax than the bottom 90 percent (the top 20 percent pay almost all federal taxes)."

PAY YOUR FAIR SH.....yeah. Nevermind.

[isle-hawg]

As I recall the Bush tax cuts basically repeal the Clinton era tax hikes. As I recall from listening to "conservative talk radio" at the time (during huge budget deficits) these tax hikes would ruin the economy.

What happened next was not only a balanced budget with low unemployment but budget surpluses to (god forgive) pay down the national debt that the same "conservative" broadcasters went on to oppose.

Enter the Republicans when in power and lower taxes and INCREASING spending. What a shock that this lead to budget deficits again...

Unfortunately when the DEMS came back to power and controlled all branches of government just more of the same but one upping the Rs with the borrowing/spending. Those that argue which party is less worse are playing into (each of ) their hands. Reminds me of the lesson I learned about how Coke and Pepsi really aren't in competition with each other so much as they are in co-hoots to run RC Cola out of business and squelch the upstart Cola/Soda companies.

[The 12th Commandment]

I could pay more. A couple hundred a year by all the people in my tax bracket would make a tremendous difference. It wouldn't kill any of us not stop us from hiring people when we need help. Other brackets the same thing. Don't kill everyone or appear to single in on anyone, make it a function of ability to pay.

[Predicto]

nicely put..starving peasants..

my job is done here...

Hell, remind me not to play along next time.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2010 at 05:48 PM ----------

"Right now, the top 1 percent of earners pay more in income tax than the bottom 90 percent (the top 20 percent pay almost all federal taxes)."

.

That's only because we have all the damn money, and accumulate more and more of the national income and assets every year. Yet somehow we have convinced you working class suckers that we need to pay even less.

It is the greatest miracle of marketing since the Pet Rock.

[NoCalMike]

Another point would be the top wage scales were having their taxes cut during time of war. Not being as to make the sacrifice the rest of us were. Well the wars have not ended, so maybe it is time for their tax rate to go back up until the wars are over.

Maybe this well get the wealthy elite on the side of ending the wars eh?

[endzone_dave]

That's only because we have all the damn money, and accumulate more and more of the national income and assets every year. Yet somehow we have convinced you working class suckers that we need to pay even less.

It is the greatest miracle of marketing since the Pet Rock.

I don't think you'll get many arguments that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could pay more taxes. But how much taxes does a family making $300K pay, how about $100K? Should a family making $50K pay continue to pay no income tax (which I got flamed for suggesting they should pay some income tax).