Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Regarding the sequester: I wonder at what point members of Congress start thinking about the people they represent. It’s not right to even debate cutting vital government programs.
It is beyond me how we can have trouble choosing between cuts in education and health services versus cutting tax breaks for the rich. Right now, the richest 1 percent get more than $270,000 in tax breaks a year, receiving larger tax breaks than middle-class families when they have a home mortgage, contribute to a 401(k) or pay property taxes.
Dozens of corporations have paid no federal income taxes for the past four years, evading $80 billion in taxes that could have helped support vital social programs.
Closing loopholes and ending tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of Americans and big corporations can raise over $1 trillion in 10 years. I think the solution is simple.
On March 3rd, 2013, LVS posted an article titled "Who will pay what in 2013 taxes?". The info was as follows:
"How much households at different income levels will pay in federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes for 2013:
Bottom 20 percent
Average income: $10,552.
Average tax bill: -$284.
Average tax rate: -2.7 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: -0.4 percent.
___
Middle 20 percent
Average income: $46,562.
Average tax bill: $6,436.
Average tax rate: 13.8 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 8.6 percent.
___
Top 20 percent
Average income: $204,490.
Average tax bill: $55,533.
Average tax rate: 27.2 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 71.8 percent.
___
Top 1 percent
Average income: $1.4 million.
Average tax bill: $514,144.
Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent.
___
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar...
Additionally, LVS posted this article this month titled "Tax bills for rich families approach 30-year high"
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar...
It would be interesting to hear Rosalyn Jimenez's opinion on how much of the federal tax burden the top 1% should bear. If paying 30.2% of all federal income taxes isn't enough for Rosalyn, what would she prefer, 50%, perhaps 60%? Would the added tax revenue close the gap between government revenue and spending? More realistically, would everyone's taxes need to be raised to pay for the cost of the federal government? Obama got his $40-60$ billion in extra yearly tax revenue via higher taxes on the top 1% of wage earners last year but it only covers paying for 6% of our $1 trillion dollar deficit bill. Perhaps Rosalyn can enlighten us more on whether or not her budget recommendations and tax policy would even pay for our current level of government spending or would she prefer to continue running budget deficits.
Roaalyn says she has a solution for the Sequester. -- raise taxes
We do not need a solution for the sequester
...
The SEQUESTER is WORKING.
We do not need to fix the sequester it is okay we are living on
---
Sequestration hypocrisy
Sequester what sequester - Sulaiman Abu Ghaith was brought to downtown NYC for a multi-million dollar show-trial instead of placing him in GITMO and interrogating him for intel. Who needs intel?
Transportation Security Administration spent $50 million to buy new uniforms for rank-and-file agents, despite budget cuts would result in furloughs and 90-minute flight delays.
---
Obama choose to shutdown the self-guided WH tours that cost $78k per week - the same day that John Kerry gave Egypt $250 million
---
20 Secret Service resources were dedicated to the New York visit by 14-year-old Malia Obama, to dine with a group of friends at the New York restaurant Buddakan less than 24 hours after President Obama signed off on the sequester.
---
Each golf trip Obama takes to Fl costs several million dollars yet there is no money for first responders. Obama was in Fl on Saturday and Sunday and on Monday reported he could not fund first responders.
---
Leaked e-mails show that team Obama has directed that the sequester should cause maximum pain.
---
Democrats political strategists say the president hopes and is directing the cuts to hurt enough to compel Republican lawmakers seeking re-election next year to agree to more tax increases.
Gene Sperling, the White House's top economic adviser, stated "Our hope is, as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts, they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,"
Let's recap. President Obama and his economic advisor Jack Lew, now Treasury Secretary, pushed for Sequestration in August 2011 since they could not get a "grand bargain." Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate agreed and coerced the republican House to "compromise" and go along. The House did and the President signed Sequestration into law to be effective January 1, 2013. Congress and the President kicked the can down the road to [as part of a fiscal cliff prevention] March 1 and then did nothing. Oh wait. I forgot: President Obama played golf with Tiger Woods and Congress took a President's Day vacation. Now, sequestration is the law. Let er rip!
CarmineD
The top 20 percent have 85% of the wealth.
The Upper 20 percent have less than 11% of the wealth.
The middle 20 percent have 4% of the wealth.
The bottom 40 percent have less than 0.2% of the wealth.
The Federal Poverty guideline has a family of 4 with an income of $23,550. With 14.5 to 15 percent of U.S. households--nearly 49 million Americans, including 16.2 million in poverty. The poverty rate, unchanged from 1993, the highest since 1983.
Meaning, the wealthy can afford to pay higher taxes. Higher taxes to the middle 20 percent could force some of those families into poverty. The assumption, most--if not all, of the bottom 40 percent are in poverty.
The unbalance is due to the unbalance in wealth. Not all Americans will be wealthy. However, there is a higher among of taxes being paid by the wealthy per the percentages. The disparaging amounts in wealth justify the higher amounts in taxes paid by the top 20 percent.
Wash DC and surrounding counties now richest in the country. I can't believe the squealing over a 2% "cut".
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.
Some would have you believe that income taxes are the only tax worthy of any discussion. To me, a tax is any contribution I make to government revenues that I don't have to spend on other things.
Some have whined repeatedly about the $60 Billion income tax increase for those making over $400,000 and more a year. But, lower and middle income workers saw their payroll taxes increase by $ 95 Billion this year. Apparently, that doesn't count because it's not an income tax.
Much is made about the Corporate income tax rate being 35% supposedly. Corporate profits are at record highs,the stock market is at record highs and major corporations have more that $2 Trillion in cash on their books. Because of loopholes and tax breaks corporations' income taxes amount to 7% of Federal revenue; less revenue than we pay for excise taxes on things such as booze and cigarettes.
Anybody see anything wrong here?
The drum beat of the left goes on & on: You pay; I benefit. Greedy & self-centered, the left has no qualms about stealing from future generations so they can have "theirs" now. They have built a house of cards and it is on the verge of collapse. Will they take any responsibilty for the chaos that ensues? You bet your sweet bippy they won't. Pointing fingers and telling lies, they will go about their envious ways even as we are all engulfed by the calamity they caused.
Rosalyn and others say the wealthy should pay more taxes. OK, but the numbers say that even if that were done, we'd be nowhere close to covering what we spend now. Add to that the fact that when our government has more revenue, it tends not to reduce spending and pay down debt, but to spend the extra revenue on more government.
Logic dictates that although more revenue is probably necessary, less spending is where we need to go if we really want to lessen deficit spending and start to pay down the debt.
Michael
Maybe next time Mayor Bloomberg could run for president and either outlaw two income wage families or require the second income family member to devote 75% of his or her income to pay federal tax revenue. This would keep the liberal left happy for 1 or 2 years.....or maybe not.
"Logic dictates that although more revenue is probably necessary, less spending is where we need to go if we really want to lessen deficit spending and start to pay down the debt."
Michael
---
The objective of taxes reform is to unleash the economy
Now people and businesses make decisions based on tax loophole, credits and deductions not what is best for the business.
When taxes reform scored static it will be revenue neutral eliminating deduction will be matched with lower rates at a wash. When dynamic scoring is applied revenue will increase hundreds of billions
The view that spending is out of control under President Obama is a crucial element of not only the Tea Party, but even the moderates in the Republican Party. I'm nearly speechless in astonishment that these people actually believe this outright fallacy.
Jared Bernstein wrote, "President Obama's spending record is the lowest of any president since Dwight D.Eisenhower according to a recent analysis by the journalist Rex Nutting for the website Market Watch (MW)."
And then to add salt to the open wound that the Republicans are already nursing, the same reporting agency verifies that, "spending under President Obama has increased more slowly than under any president since the 1950's."
The only calamity here is the right-wingers putting a "Gucci" label on President Obama when in fact he is a thrifty and tightfisted spender.
I liked your letter to the editor, Rosalyn Jimenez. You are right. The solution is simple.
However, one thing perplexes me, why is it a simple mind can't seem to a grasp a simple solution?
How much of a stimulus check did Eisenhower get to buy votes with? $700 billion? Sure, Obama is a regular Calvin Coolidge when it comes to taxpayer money. Oh, he got the money before his fiscal year started so kneepad media reports it wasn't his spending and the low-information voter agrees. Simple.
Sorry BChap your facts are flawed. President Obama has added ONE TRILLION in debt every year of his term. It's $16.5 T now and growing. CBO says it will be $985 Billion in 2013. Wow, a decline of $15B. Progress, in large part due to the Sequester. It's estimated that when President Obama leaves office the USA will have a debt of $20 T. It was $6 T in 1985. Now, Obama is not completely to blame EXCEPT for his terms.
CarmineD
There above is the rusty and corroded mindset of a Republican clearly showing them as nothing more than an aggravating blemish on the casing of a recovering economy. All of this in spite of the Republican promise to undermine President Obama every step of the way.
Wow!!! It sure is nice to see political bullies finally being neutered.
ELIMINATE public K-12. Broken beyond repair. Even money can't fix it. "Teachers" at $100K a year to daycare....
BChap: Check the latest McClatchy-Marist poll. Americans give Congressional Republicans a higher rating than the President to deal with deficits: 44 to 42 percent.
CarmineD
Corporations do NOT PAY ANY TAXES because businesses pass-on any and all taxes to their customers--so eliminate the paperwork and STOP TAXING corporations. Find out what government is really costing us.
Too much saving is no good for long-term adjustments. It's about The America. It's not who doesn't have the will, it's more to those who should do decisions and get the help for vital and profitable functions.
Roslenda is Correct...When a corporation is confronted with any kind of expense including taxes, utilities, etc. they pass it on to the consumers. We pay the corporations taxes. If the Federal Government would just be happy that the corporations employ the people we would all be better off.
Who uses government services? The public. That's who. The public should pay for what they use.
The only VITAL federal program is national defense so let's get around to it: SECURE THE BORDER. Deport and expel illegals.
@BCap, After reading your post I'm completely dumdfounded. $17 Trillion of debt,,,,$20 Trillion expected by the end of the presidents terms and you say he's thrifty? LOL
Does anyone honestly see stopping the White House tours as a legitimate act in response to the sequester?
You are absolutely correct about the debt, CarmineD (Carmine DiFazio), in stating that "It's $16.5 T now and growing." The Federal Debt is currently $16,703,943,129,416.14 the last time I checked: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogi... (perhaps 10 minutes ago.)
BUT that same site says that more then 25% of that debt figure is "Intragovernmental Holdings." Just recently, regarding the need to repay Congressional raids on the Social Security Trust Fund, you maintained that the Government can't owe itself. So that 25+% shouldn't be included in the debt, should it? So that leaves a publicly held debt of only $11,855,880,363,426.63.
People, most recently Future 3:26 a.m, today, claim that the sequester is WORKING! Today is day 10 of the sequester. It's in effect until at least September 30. Federal employment regulations require at least 30 days advance notice before changing any employee's regularly scheduled work hours or pay rate - so no time or pay cuts can take effect until March 31 at the earliest, And that's a cut that can be made fairly rapidly. Imagine the Pentagon trying to cut 10% off the F-35 Lightning II program, aka the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, that has been in development for 16 1/2 years to date, has only flown some 2,500 hours, and is currently estimated at $100 million each! And the Pentagon wants to buy more than 2,300 of these!
How is it possible to ALREADY claim that the sequester is working, when it's not yet begun to take effect?
"Congressional raids on the Social Security Trust Fund, you maintained that the Government can't owe itself."
Robert: I was being facetious [you didn't get it]. Do you know what that means? Hint: I used the term hunky dory. The only thing that the Federal government does that is "honky dory" is spend spend spend other people's money.
CarmineD
"Federal employment regulations require at least 30 days advance notice before changing any employee's regularly scheduled work hours or pay rate"
Robert:
Actually warn letters are suppose to go out 90 days ahead but our illustrious President reduced the period to 60.
CarmineD
"How is it possible to ALREADY claim that the sequester is working, when it's not yet begun to take effect?"
Robert: Apparently President Obama didn't get the memo. He cancelled White House Tours effective March 9.
CarmineD
"Federal employment regulations require at least 30 days advance notice before changing any employee's regularly scheduled work hours or pay rate"
Robert:
Actually warn letters are suppose to go out 90 days ahead but our illustrious President reduced the period to 60.
CarmineD
---
A smart government would have put the letters out 90 day before the start day of the sequester March 1st.
But Obama failed that simple task
The sequester is working because every day we are spending 2% less
"A smart government would have put the letters out 90 day before the start day of the sequester March 1st.
But Obama failed that simple task" FUTURE
Since the Sequester was to be effective January 1, the letters should have gone out right before the election [60 days the new normal]. Guess who put the kabash on that happening. Hint: He said in the Oct 2012 presidential debates that sequestration would not happen. He lied. Or he was wrong. Or both. Take your choice.
CarmineD
Sequestering will likely prove nearly as valuable as Edsels and Corvairs in a Figure 8...entertaining, in a way.
US taxes, as part of GDP, are among the lowest of any industrialized nation. "We have a spending problem" doesn't pass the smell test. It is simply untrue. Furthermore, if ONE person in the US had every single dollar in the US, they would pay every bit of taxes. That is simply because taxes follow money. The Republicans on this site want you to believe that taxes should follow population..."20% pay 20%+ so these 20% are treated unfairly". That argument is simply a lie meant to confuse. We have a taxing problem. Let's stop the corporate handouts, tax the rich appropriately, and YES, try to make government more efficient. But these liars that want large corporations to keep their handouts while reducing SS and Medicare to pay for it, need to be called out.
A Democrat saying to raise taxes???????
That is strange.
Never heard a Democrat ever say to raise taxes.
Hmmmmmm...must be something new.
It is amazing how people make decisions of what should happen to others as long as they are not affected:
-I am not wealthy, so tax the rich
-I do not own guns, so ban them
-I don't drive fast, so don't increase the speed limit
-"the list goes on
Ms. Jimenez:
As far as congress thinking about who they represent, keep in mind that they represent everyone, not just people like you that are very liberal (pun intended) with other people's money, but since you have all the answers I look forward to seeing your name on the ballot next election.
Longtime: You are exactly right. The rich don't have to worry about SS or Medicare, so cut it. They live behind gates with guards so they don't need police. Their kids go to private school, so teachers can be fired. The difference is they can pay politicians and lobbyists to make their wishes true.....and they have.
The poor are using their vote to make things fair.....not to unfairly take...that has already been done by the wealthy. Just look around.
Rosalyn.......GREAT LETTER, SPOT ON!
Yes, the solution is simple.
Close the loop holes, it's pay back time for
greedy republicans.
Greedy republicans stole our jobs, our wages,
our health care and our retirements.
And hide their money in the Caymen Islands.
Those no good, greedy, heartless republican
bastards need to pay it back!
NOW!
"Sequestering will likely prove nearly as valuable as Edsels and Corvairs"
Two of the most successful failures of the auto industry. Endangered but not extinct.
CarmineD
Carmine, Future. Please reread my original post. I said that letters changing work hours/pay must go out AT LEAST 30 days in advance of the action. The actual timing varies based on what is being cut (work days, work hours, pay rate, etc), why its being cut, what the union contract (if any) specifies, who is affected, and other factors. It takes a really egregious action to allow shortening that time. The practical work-around is to issue a letter as prescribed and immediately place an individual on paid administrative leave.
Carmine - your use of facetiousness comes across just as well as my use of irony or occasional sarcasm. All are easy to spot in the oral language but are quite problematic in writing.
Robert:
Did you know in 2007 President Obama was actually criticizing the WARN Law on the Floor of the Senate saying that US employees deserved 90 days or more notice. Now you and he claim 30 days will suffice. I believe there is a word in the English langauage, oral and written, for this sudden change in thinking by a person. I'm pretty sure it starts with "h." Where the President stands depends on where he sits. Not just on WARN letters but a host of other issues.
CarmineD
I know just a little about WARN, Carmine. Among the things I know are: 1) It applies to plant closings and mass lay-offs. Haven't heard anyone suggesting either as a response to the sequester. 2) If people WERE talking about plant closings or mass layoffs as a response to the sequester, WARN excludes regular federal, state, and local government entities that provide public services. It would take YEARS for the courts to define what "provides public services" means. At one end people would argue that only those employees with routine face to face public contact are covered. At the other end people would argue that the ONLY purpose of governments having ANY employees is so they can provide one form or another of "public service."
To those who are doing the happy dance over the sequester and possible government shut down, I wish you'd been in NYC after the sanitation workers went on strike.
I don't think anyone realizes the impact that just the sequester is going to have. This is going to be a trickle down disaster for everyone and it's going to affect everyone.
If the government shuts down, what does everyone think is going to happen to our deployed troops when they run out of ammunition, parts and fuel? Would we even be able to bring them home?
Do people think food is going to continue to be delivered to grocery stores without being inspected?
Who is going to maintain Arlington and the rest of the U.S. military cemeteries? For once I'm glad that my father is buried in Lorraine American Cemetery in France, because they still revere our fallen and will maintain it even if they don't get paid. A French family also places flowers on his grave on his birthday every year....on their own...because they still care and respect his sacrifice.
Robert:
WARN letters apply to government contractors. This is by all accounts the single most likely sector of the economy to be most negatively impacted by Sequestration.
CarmineD