Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Dec. 9, 2012 | 2 a.m.
There has been so much in the media about allowing the tax rate for the highest earners to return to where it was before the Bush tax cuts. I have a hard time understanding why there seems to be so much support for the rich even though the very rich represent only a small demographic of America. The worst argument in my opinion is where some say that if the tax rate was “raised,” we would still have a deficit. Well, duh, if we cut 4.6 percent of the spending, which is how much some would raise the tax on ...
Ken,
I hear your concern but many Americans are looking for economic, job growing and debt/deficit reduction solutions. We're tired of politicians presenting a remedy that satisfies their political base but does not solve our country's economic issues short or long term. liberals are frustrated because there is not enough revenue from any source including future generations to pay for current levels of government spending. Phrases such as "reduce the deficit", "reform entitlements" or "reform the tax code" are concepts that liberals have effectively shunned. Capitalism and successful people are liberal's moral scapegoat to explain our countries issues. Those with ideas, who work hard, who risk and who strive to improve our standard of living are an asset to our country. Liberals want to kill the thoroughbred in us and keep us all herded in sameness. Yesterday, I linked an article below How newly elected French Socialist President Hollande wanted to eliminate student homework saying that "homework favors wealthy families because they are more likely to have the time and ability to support and supervise their children's after-school efforts." What a terrible idea. Is excelling in school, sports, hobbies or at work such a bad thing? Is it bad to get rewarded for the extra effort and time spent excelling at something? Is it unfair to excel and be rewarded? equality and fairness are not the same thing. Most inequality is the result of choices people make including the choice to work, not the result of unfairness or accidental events over which people have no control.
Income distribution should be judged not by how equal it is, but by how people obtained what they have. Freedom to excel and a culture of work leads to prosperity but there must be rewards for those who excel. Yesterday, someone suggested an 80%-90% tax rate on top wage earners. Does economic growth increase income inequality? Yes, but it's rewarding those with ideas, who work hard, who risk and who strive to improve our standard of living that make our country exceptional. I understand liberals desire for more funds to pay for government spending however, we've already crossed the threshold of having enough rich people to pay for our current levels of government spending. Raise tax revenue? Sure, but spending cuts must accompany tax revenue increases and so far, we have not seen any detailed government spending reduction plan from the democrats. It's time for Obama, Reid and Pelosi to present their spending reduction plan.
http://newsdeskinternational.wordpress.c...
----
----
Obama has made a political decision to not limit spending and t only raise taxes
This is not what Obama campaigned on but raising tax at double what he campaign on is all he will do
The house plan has both revenue and spending limits
The House Congressional fiscal cliff written formal offer comes from the the details of the Democrat's Erskine Bowles plan and includes $800 billion in revenue through tax reform; $600 billion in health savings; $300 billion in other entitlement savings; and another $300 billion in savings in the discretionary federal budget.
Letter writer is correct that there are multiple solutions to the deficit and debt problems. Democrats in the Senate and the President see the only solution as raising taxes on the rich. Republicans and the GOP House leadership see the best solution as cutting spending. Both must be done or we take the fiscal cliff dive soon. Simple solution. GOP should go along with the President and Senate and raise taxes on the top 2 percent. President said he's ready to sign it. GOP gets tax cuts extended for 98 percent of Americans. Then the GOP does not sign onto anymore Democratic tax increases unless and until President and Dems concede spending cuts. If none are put on the table, and they won't be at least while President Obama is in office, the GOP sits tight and let's the economic chips lie where they fall. The President's fingerprints are all over the outcomes, not the GOP.
CarmineD
There are a lot of small business owners that get taxed on their businesses via Income Tax.
Their small businesses will take a hit with the tax increase. That hit will trickle down to the employees.
Restoring the pre-Bush taxes on the rich will raise $85 billion a year.
The deficit is over a trillion a year. That will cut the deficit by 8.5%. Obama now needs to come up a plan for the other 91.5% or at least 50%.
Some 5 years ago he promised to cut the deficit in half. He has abandoned that promise and could care less about the deficit.
He could care less that the US spends more on US interest than education and welfare combined.
He could care less that the the interest payments in the next decade or so will be greater than the defense budget.
Democrats don't care.
I say raise the taxes. Democrats can have their 85 billion a year in taxes. If some employees take a hit then they can send a thank you to the Democratic party.
Some 40 or years from now, nobody will buy US bonds. Then the government will print money 24/7 (kinda like it does now but 1,000x's faster). A loaf of bread will be like $2k and that will equal some 10% of an avg Joe's paycheck.
I am sure that generation will remember fondly the previous generations.
With ObamaCare kicking in, soon Medicare, Medicaid and SSN will consume around 60% of budget. In 40 years it will be just SSN, Medicare, Medicaid and interest payments consuming nearly 90% of the budget.
It will be doomsday for the citizens of the USA.
It will be legacy of the Democratic party and will bring chaos to the planet when the USA crumbles into small sub-nations.
Ken Anderson is correct in his contention. The fiscal problem is now so large you cannot solve it with 'just' more taxes or 'just' more spending cuts.
Here is the real problem. One side wants to 'limit' what they will do on the tax revenue to side to 'just' the wealthy. The other side wants to define a 'spending cut' as a 'reduction in the rate of spending growth'. Both sides have favored areas where cuts would be tiny or non-existent, such as Defense and Entitlements, respectively, which are the two largest drivers of our debt.
Starting from such a baseline gives us ZERO chance of being successful.
Michael
There is always this argument that if you tax the rich and make them pay their fair share, it will not help.
And in some warped way of thinking, there is even something thrown out there that because of this line of thought, that we should not raise taxes on the rich. That because it won't make a difference, then that is sufficient reason for them to keep reaping all the benefits. And shove the sacrifice off on the rest of us.
There is even some kind of bent thinking that both political parties are at fault.
This is all just deflection.
We just had an election. And people voted. The people of America, even Republicans, voted for President Obama and his administration for another four years.
And they MANDATED him, yes, there's that word, MANDATED him, to get rid of the infernal Former President George W. Bush Jr. Tax Cuts For The Rich, The Filthy Rich, And The Obscenely Filthy Rich.
That policy was meant to be temporary. Not permanent. The temporary part is over with. We, the American people, REFUSE to live under incompetent and idiotic Bush the Lesser policies that we still seem to be following. Why? Because they do more to hurt the American economy than help it.
People can call it "class warfare," oh, you're just jealous you aren't making money like they are, oh, it won't make a difference, so just let them be, and this one is precious...but...but...but we simply must not overtax the "job creators."
Spew all that stuff all you want, call it what you want, but I call it to hell with you. We're not listening to that garbage anymore. This past election EMPHATICALLY asserted we want no part of it anymore.
Those tax cuts are gone, baby, gone.
Bet on it. Reach for your wallets/purses, richie rich dudes/dudettes, because you're paying. Paying what you should have been paying in taxes a long time ago.
Your good thing has come to an end.
And it's not stopping there. Next is the tax code and getting rid of loopholes that make no sense. And it's not stopping there.
I'm so glad that the American people, as reflected by our elected government, have rejected this fantasy world we been living in for about thirty years now.
The Tea/Republican Party has decided to run interference for the rich. And they are paying for that fact. It's not over. We'll destroy the entire Tea/Republican Party if they stay in the pockets of the rich. We're not fooled anymore.
As a current beneficiary of Social Security and Medicare, I have a dog in this fight. However, I am willing to accept some reduction (called "reform" in Conservative-speak)in those benefits. But I'll be damned if I'll do that just so the wealthiest among us can keep their tax breaks. I have often stated on these pages that we are all in this together and will need shared sacrifice from all of us to solve the debt problem. We have a unique opportunity to do just that at the end of this month. Let's let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire and begin that process.
I'll be listening to see if our conservative friends are really as concerned about the debt as they are about their own tax bills.
Jim Weber,
What is the goal of your ideal economic plan? Job growth and reducing the deficit? Getting more of the unemployed working again improves their morale, self-reliance, increases tax revenue and removes some from government assistance who no longer need it. Does your ideal economic plan balance government tax and spend right away or does your plan get us to balance within a 5 year window to allow for job growth and adding tax revenue as the unemployed gain employment?
Here are a few questions for all to answer:
(1)Do you think people of middle class means, or less, should support the needs of the Wealthy? What's wrong with this picture?
(2)If your thinking not of your own interest, but the interest of others who do not have your interest in mind, are you considered reasonable? Or naive? Or mislead? Or misinformed? Or a compassionate and giving person?
The immediate and long term large picture coming from the Obama administration is Debt Ceiling and Tax Reform. Placing all relevant information on the table points in this direction.
The best part, wealthy Americans will be out front driving progress on both issues. This President is smart.
Freeman: I agree that hard work and innovation needs to be rewarded. This is the American way. If I come up with a million dollar idea, there's huge motivation for me to pursue it.....whether I get to keep $500k of it or $800k of it. The tax rate does not impact entrepreneurship...that is pure fantasy to support your partisan ideal.
The rich USED to sell 100K items and make a $100k salary. When they sold 150K items they'd make $150K salary. Not any more. Now they sell 100k items, and cut their employees pay and benefits. Then they give themselves $150K salary. This has gone on for the last 30 years. The rich used their pen and their power to transfer wealth from their employees to themselves. This is simply fact.
Now, with this election, the people have used THIER pen and THEIR power to start the process of transferring some of that wealth back to them.
You are correct there is class warfare...it's been going on for 30 years and we FINALLY have the first salvo fired back.
Jim Weber wrote,
"But I'll be damned if I'll do that just so the wealthiest among us can keep their tax breaks. I have often stated on these pages that we are all in this together and will need shared sacrifice from all of us to solve the debt problem. We have a unique opportunity to do just that at the end of this month. Let's let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire and begin that process."
Jim, you said it true! Amen!
CreatedEQL,
Fiscal issues involving taxes and spending are not wage issues.
Regarding salaries/wages, it would be a good exercise for many to understand how companies determine salaries/wages for its employees. Companies want to pay a competitive rate. If pay is too high then competition can have an edge in gaining a share of the market via price wars that drive high cost competitors out of business. If pay is too low then a company experiences higher turnover rates which is undesirable on many fronts. Many companies utilize wage & salary surveys conducted in the state where the company unit exists. As a plant manager in one company, I would take all job classes in our plant and compare our pay rates paid to the same job class in our state. The wage & salary survey would list pay per job class at low. medium and high pay levels. The survey would not list surveyed companies pay rates. For any pay level that was below I would recommend a bump to mid-level pay. If a job class required extensive training/education I would recommend the highest pay level. We automatically included cost of living increases. After reviewing my wage & salary recommendations with my boss at corporate, I would send the wage & salary recommendations to corporate human resources for review. Corporate human resources most often accepted my recommendation but during lean years they would counter my proposal resulting in a few adjusted rates than what I proposed. For many job classes, we had incentive pay for those with higher production rates. Determining beginning pay and pay raises is a process that has many factors.
I would suggest asking your employer how they determine beginning pay, pay raises, incentive pay rates for production levels and bonuses for overall performance of the company or business unit. The rich aren't artificially holding down wage rates for others.
Freeman: My company does it exactly as you state. If forced to keep pay consistent to retain a workforce they will adjust salary. I'm talking about a systemic problem, the death by a thousand cuts. Companies lobby to NOT adjust the minimum wage, then they remove a small benefit here, increase the cost of the benefit there. My favorite is "we didn't meet our plan" (which was not based on any reality), so they'll be no bonuses this year. After 30 years of companies doing this, we are where we are at today, with not much left. The owners always manage to show up in a new Mercedes though. The middle class used to have higher wages overall, could buy things, and that kept the economy moving. Now, enough has been 'redistributed' from them up, that people can no longer buy. The US is a middle class 'buying things' economy and it's drying up. What's the rich's solution? Fire teachers, Fire policemen, "let's look at SS", "let's look at Medicare". See the pattern? It's the pattern of the last 30 years. Enough.
Freeman
The CBO says if we go over the fiscal cliff we'll reduce the 2013 deficit by $590 Billion. As I said "it's a beginning". I know you think we should extend tax cuts for the wealthy because it only reduces the deficit by $82 Billion and is apparently such a pittance it isn't worth considering. Somehow I doubt you would pass up the chance for $82 Billion in spending cuts though.
But, if you prefer to borrow another $82 Billion and add it to the debt, you are free to say so.
I also said "I'll be listening to see if our conservative friends are really as concerned about the debt as they are about their own tax bills."
How about it Freeman? The World wonders.
Wow, trickledown voodoo economics really does work! Just look at the abundance of jobs we have due to the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, er, I mean 'job creators'.
I don't understand why the Progressive letter writers to the Sun are still fighting. You won! The tax cuts for the wealthy are going away. Boehner already offered 800 billion in increased taxes on the rich. If no deal is reached, and we go over the cliff, all the tax cuts go away but D's and Obama will restore the middle class cuts in 2013 and R's will go along. The question is what do we do after we tax the wealthy and we still have the same big problems. Now, that will be interesting.
I do find it amusing that Colin says the Bush tax cuts were intended to be only temporary, which is true, but at the same time, he wants to make those temporary tax cuts 'permanent' on the middle class.
The truth is that unless we are willing to make gigantic and real cuts in many areas, including defense and entitlements, the Bush tax cuts for the middle class must also be rescinded over time.
Michael
CreatedEQL,
The rich aren't artificially holding down wage rates for others. I contend that many in the middle class have been unwise spenders, investors and savers. Now they're stuck with a slow crawling economy with debts and low savings. Over the last two decades, individual debt has climbed and the savings rate has dropped. From 1990 to 2008, median home prices doubled. The average price for a new car in 2008 was $27,704. Of course those buying new homes for the first time had to buy furniture(usually new) and the dot.com boom had people buying computers and internet access. Then of course there are cell phones for every household member. Many consumers made "need" purchases that were previously described as "wants" in previous generations. Consumers felt they had a continuous flow of money to support their new upscale lifestyle but recessions happen, housing bubbles happen and some get caught without a nest egg to fall back on because they failed to save and invest. If you spend anytime at all in Europe you'll see that Americans have more toys and bigger everything; cars, boats, motorcycles, houses, pools, appetites and clothes. IMHO, our big spending days are over at least for a while.
There are absolutely solutions to the above issues but let's look at the environment that were living in. People want a maximum amount of entitlements with the minimum amount of taxes. They want everything but don't want to pay for anything.
In addition the 3100 medical lobbyists in Washington DC love the fact that were spending trillions of dollars a year on medical care. That's where all the money's going.
When you look at the above formula deficits are result. Until we control medical spending and everyone pay some taxes you're going to have deficits as far as the eye can see.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16...
Wages have been stagnant for years and medical spending is about to break $20,000 a year per family. Without getting this nonsense under control you can't get the deficits under control. Tens of thousands of people a day are signing up for various government health care programs on the federal, state and local level and that is the single biggest factor in our fiscal imbalance.
Ref... It doesn't matter why half the country doesn't have any money. The point is they don't have it. With the domestic savings rate at about 3% that translates to $1500 a year in savings for the average family of four. That's not enough to cover a dental emergency or blown transmission. As the young start growing old with nothing in their pockets they are going to demand affordable medical care, a strong pension system and safety nets that keep them from sitting on the street corner when they are 70 years old. My baby-boom generation saved trillions and trillions of dollars of wealth. More than a third of my baby boomers are completely reliant on their Social Security check as a primary source of income. People under the age of 35 basically have nothing today.
Obama has had 4 years to tell us how HE is planning on cutting deficits--said he would during first campaign. Not a word. More spending plans. And ya think we take him at his word that he'll come up with something after he increases taxes?
Rosalinda... Tell me the truth. Is FOX News your favorite TV channel? Obama is the only president to come along in the last 50 years to improve the deficit each year in office. I will try to find you a chart.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-D...
Roslenda...sorry about the above spelling.
Gerry,
The top fifth of the income distribution now receive about 12 times as much income as the bottom fifth. But that's mainly because the top fifth spends vastly more time in the labor market earning a living. In fact, if you divide income by the number of weeks of work, the difference between the top and bottom fifth is only 2 to 1.
Most families in the top fifth of the income distribution had two full-time workers, while most families in the bottom fifth had no full time worker,
Specifically, in the top fifth there were 2.2 workers per household, on the average; in the bottom fifth, there were 0.7.
Less than one-third of families in the bottom fifth had a head of household working full time; in the top fifth, three-fourths of families did.
Adults in the bottom fifth tend to be either very young or very old. The very young are the ones starting out in life who have yet to learn the job skills that will produce a high income. The very old are the ones who are retired. By contrast, the people in the top fifth tend to be people in their peak earning years.
In the bottom fifth of the income distribution, only one-third of households are headed by someone age 35 to 54; whereas in the top quintile, more than half of household heads are in that age range.
The bottom group also has a much larger proportion of household heads older than 75 years of age -- 11.5 percent versus 2.3 percent for the top group.
When reviewing income inequality, two major factors are the number of adults working in the household AND the age of the adult workers. Real young workers and older retired people are expected to earn less than those in the prime of their earning potential years of 35 to 54 years old. These factors will affect the income spread between upper and lower income groups.
No, no there isn't, not until majority of americans
are with society: working productivity as their precept towards their personal shareholder's piece of America. Work, work and more work.
Adults over 35 years should start basic school again. Because now they are at the age to understand a little from the pre/teenage lectures. Just a reminder to make learning a reality facing fact. How much politicians have forgot entering negotiations affecting everyone.
Nobody of us likes a phrase "now snake has escaped to the economic jade plant and scares money out of markets". This has happened. Every class is feeling uncertainty, answers seem to be distant choices without real answers to anyone. Upper class is in no better situation than middle class. Debt problem will touch everyone.
ref... Your above analysis might be absolutely correct. I don't dispute it for a minute. The issue is regardless of how you look at it there are vast numbers of young people in this country who have nothing. Half the elderly are dying penniless. Regardless of why this is occurring it is is a lousy situation.
The young have a difficult time building wealth and the elderly can't hang onto what they have.
rhpobbar.....Regarding the phrase, "now snake has escaped to the economic jade plant and scares money out of markets" I have no clue what it means but it's a beauty. Not many Americans are familiar with that one!!!!! Good job!!
Ref 2:24 BEAUTIFUL insight on why many earn more--time spent WORKING. And the times have not changed so much--entry level workers get entry level pay while seasoned professionals who deploy those skills are valued more.
Still not much to assist seniors. We never knew until we aged out about the age discrimination, tax pressures when homes are lost or paid off, kids are out of the nest and not deductible... Didn't know about the meagerness of SS / Medicare. Best you stay healthy 'cause your "copays" are going to consume life savings with the onset of a chronic condition or surgery.
Apologies to all. Every now and then I attempt to converse with Zippy and WharfRat. As recently, I am quickly reminded that some Posters are not interested in communication but seem to prefer "gamesmanship" where they can "think" they are condescending.
200 billion in additional stimulus spending is desperately needed to pay for election year promises to special interest groups. The problem is Americans want $10 worth of government but are only willing to pay $6.
Good speech and vote by Demint. The usual dumbtard teaparty bashers who post here should get a clue. Government for sale, it's why the richest and highest income inequality counties in the country are clustered around Wash DC.
"I gave a speech to 400 Chamber members and everyone was for Ex-Im Bank," he says. "So I asked them: 'How many of you would sign your own name to this loan?' Not a single hand went up." Mr. DeMint says he voted as he did because he's concluded that "we've created a culture in Washington that has almost every major business in the country with its nose in the trough."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424......
Tell me again who was President BEFORE the Busch tax cuts? Would Clinton-era prosperity be good?
Per Future "The House Congressional fiscal cliff written formal offer comes from the the details of the Democrat's Erskine Bowles plan. . . "
Wrong. Erskine Bowles has never presented a "plan." In 2011 He appeared before the House. During his testimony he parsed the differences between the Democratic and Republican positions as they were at that time. The fact that this exercise has become the "Republican" plan simply shows that the two sides are so FAR apart that a "splitting the difference" exercise is now the Republican plan.
A simple example: I ask an employer for a $1 raise. The employer counters by offering me a $7 dollar cut. Using the principal of the alleged Bowles "plan", my employer would then offer to be reasonable and "split the difference" - cutting my wage by "only" $3.
RefNV (Re Freeman): You state that "The top fifth of the income distribution now receive about 12 times as much income as the bottom fifth." For now I'll stipulate that, although I could find no reference to support you.
I DID find (athttp://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php) that between 1967 and 2011 real household income (inflation adjusted...) for the bottom quintile rose 23.1%, while that of the top quintile rose by 75.0%, and for the top 5% by 94.1%. For the bottom 4 quintiles, it is predicted to drop after 2011. For the top quintile alone it is predicted to rise. For the top 5% it is predicted to rise even faster.
The top quintile has seen its real household income drop by 2.1% since its peak (in 2006), while the bottom quintile has dropped 8.4% since its peak year (in 1999).
Analysis: The top quintile has always taken a larger percentage of the national income than has the bottom quintile. In recent years, this inequality has drastically increased, to the point that the US has greater income inequality than struggling third-world countries and even greater than developed European countries. A statistic called the "Gini" is a measure of inequality, where 0 means everyone has the same, and 100% means one person has it all. US income Gini = 46.4%; Indonesia = 39.6%, Pakistan =39.8%, Japan = 31.9. US wealth Gini = 80.1%, Indonesia = 76.3, Pakistan 69.7%, Japan = 54.7%. US, where "all men are created equal" is not as good as a variety of other countries in maintaining that equality: largely due to a tax system heavily weighted in favor of the wealthy. This is a trend that must be to be reversed.