Raise Taxes on the Rich !

[Scanner]

The debate over the budget and deficit rages on. Or does it ? Is this really a debate ? Most of what I hear (even from Democrats) is all about cutting spending, and how to cut out of this or that.

Congratulations to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elliott Spitzer for talking about the steep drop in tax rates on the top margin tax brackets since the 1980s. Since 1987, the top bracket's taxes have never been higher than 39.6% (Clinton years), and were as low as 28% (Reagan's time).

But over the past 94 years, most of the time, the top earners' rates were never less than 70%, and were as high as 94%, and ran at a 91-92% clip for 13 straight years from 1951 to 1963. This was a time of prosperity (for all the "it's going to cost jobs" hollerers).

So there's your budget deficit, folks. 24 straight years of unusually low taxes on the super rich doesn't exactly boost a treasury (and the 5 years between 1982 and 1987, at 50%, wasn't really too high either).

So sure, cut the fat. Get rid of the rip-offs. Nobody's disputing that. But to not even have tax hikes on the super rich on the table at a time like this is pure idiocy.

And before anyone starts yakking about how the rich will all move out of the country, or do this or that, please. They didn't do that for most of the last 94 years.
They paid the normal tax rates for their economic class. They can do that now too.
Can we get real here, please ?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I support progressive taxation. I suspect tax hikes are necessary to solve our budget problems.

But raising taxes is not a long-term solution to the problem. We have to find an equilibrium that our economy and our electorate will support. That certainly involves more rational spending, robust reforms and considerable slashing in addition to targeted taxation.

 

[Scanner]

I support progressive taxation. I suspect tax hikes are necessary to solve our budget problems.

But raising taxes is not a long-term solution to the problem. We have to find an equilibrium that our economy and our electorate will support. That certainly involves more rational spending, robust reforms and considerable slashing in addition to targeted taxation.

Sounds like you're in agreement with me and what I said. Here's some numbers for all the doubters out there :

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Sounds like you're in agreement with me and what I said. Here's some numbers for all the doubters out there :

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

I'm in agreement that we should cover our short-term debts in part with tax hikes. However, in the long term, we need to be far more efficient and frugal. I don't support a sustained, long-haul tax rate nearly as high as what we once had. We should keep it minimal and as simple as possible. We've failed on both counts.

 

[Scanner]

I'm in agreement that we should cover our short-term debts in part with tax hikes. However, in the long term, we need to be far more efficient and frugal. I don't support a sustained, long-haul tax rate nearly as high as what we once had. We should keep it minimal and as simple as possible. We've failed on both counts.

Why do you think the tax rates we most commonly have had are not appropriate for the future ? Why should future taxes be not nearly as high as they always have been ? How are we now so different than the Americans of the 1950s (when top tax rates were 91-92%, economy was good, the rich didn't leave town). One thing I would change is to cut spending on NASA. The sattelites may be a good idea (some of them), but ideas of going back to the moon are ridiculous. For what ? We didn't get anything from the moon the first time (if they ever even really went there). And George Bush says we should go to Mars ? Pure idiocy, and a huge waste of money.
Generally, I think the overspending is overrated, and we need to stop what overspending is ocurring, AND get back to normal taxation, and stay there. With this deficit, we should have learned our lesson by now, despite the efforts by young, spoiled-brat greed freaks, whose greed has no bounds, and their running-dog politician mouthpieces (Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, etc).

 

[Ed Gein]

Progressive taxation is immoral. None of us is born in equal status, but there are no kings, and if you are a peasant in this country, it is by your own choice.

Enough of this milquetoast dribble about yes raise the taxes on the wealthy, but be prudent in spending. Tripe pure and simple, because A) Taking one man's wealth to give to another is immoral, and B) Government will only be prudent when the people refuse to take it up the ass with higher taxes.

It's an easy sell though, soak the rich, because most people are not wealthy, and the only sin more more pervasive than greed, is envy.

 

[jambalaya]

If the government would just give one small sign that they can be trusted with our tax money and show some restraint, I would have no problem giving them more of it. Our politicians are drunk with power and will spend our money in any way possible to maintain that power. There is little sense of perspective. Why can't we insist that they first show us they can be responsible before we give in to more taxes?

I don't think we can compare tax rates of 40 or more years ago with today's rates. The cost of living is much higher and we all pay many other federal taxes on top of just simple income tax. The federal goverment taxes the hell out of gas, tabacco, firearms and alcohol. Telephone, Cable TV, and other services we use every day have federal taxes associated with it. I would love it if someone could figure out what all these federal taxes add up to for the average American. It may be necessary to raise taxes at some point but we should always fight raising taxes. It is the easy way out for the politician.

 

[Geo Patric]

But raising taxes is not a long-term solution to the problem. We have to find an equilibrium that our economy and our electorate will support. That certainly involves more rational spending, robust reforms and considerable slashing in addition to targeted taxation.

this has a familiar ring. well, of course, how does one argue against 'rational spending'? and,' jeepers, we are spending so much... we gotta cut down' as an argument lacks a certain something. reductions based on a view of 'how much' and not on 'what and why' is not on the right route to 'rational spending'. that is not to say your conclusion is wrong, only questionable because your premise is questionable.

'equilibrium in taxation and in spending' would depend on 'equilibrium in need and income', an unlikely event. maintaining economic balance is a lot like maintaining an ideal weight.. a grand idea that requires constant adjustment.

geo.

 

[TheBook]

if you are a peasant in this country, it is by your own choice.

Stopped reading riiight there. I'm all for the American dream but let's be honest, it takes more than a good work ethic to succeed. It's pretty difficult to claw your way from the lower class to the upper class.

 

[Geo Patric]

A) Taking one man's wealth to give to another is immoral

yes, it is, of course, which is why we tax those who have taken more than they are rightfully deserving of. the more they have taken from the rest of us, the more we require they pay back. simple. even the god of your economic phlisophy preached the same message.

geo.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

yes, it is, of course, which is why we tax those who have taken more than they are rightfully deserving of. the more they have taken from the rest of us, the more we require they pay back. simple. even the god of your economic phlisophy preached the same message.

geo.

Taken more? So the wealthy are just thieves in your eyes? They don't deserve their wealth? Well, by golly mr liberal, who makes the decision on how much someone deserves to have? :roll:

 

[Geo Patric]

Taken more? So the wealthy are just thieves in your eyes? They don't deserve their wealth? Well, by golly mr liberal, who makes the decision on how much someone deserves to have? :roll:

i said nothing about thievery or deserving.

roll yer eyes back in yer head. i can provide good classical liberal support for my argument... i have in the past.. i can do it again. you wanna play? bring something besides trite attiude and a pretense of an economic philosphy (and yes, 'Libertarianism' is a pretense).

otherwise, i gotta better things to do than watch a circle jerk.

geo.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Progressive taxation is immoral. None of us is born in equal status, but there are no kings, and if you are a peasant in this country, it is by your own choice.

Enough of this milquetoast dribble about yes raise the taxes on the wealthy, but be prudent in spending. Tripe pure and simple, because A) Taking one man's wealth to give to another is immoral, and B) Government will only be prudent when the people refuse to take it up the ass with higher taxes.

It's an easy sell though, soak the rich, because most people are not wealthy, and the only sin more more pervasive than greed, is envy.

I disagree completely.

First, what about progressive taxation is immoral? You recognize inequality in society, then call a system that reacts to that inequality immoral. Calling progressive taxation immoral because it treats citizens differently is akin to calling capitalism immoral because it rewards different types of labor differently. Progressive taxation is practical.

As to my "milquetoast" stance on taxation, call it what you will, but our system demands compromise. A flat tax will not serve the needs of the many. Confiscatory taxes don't serve the needs of the wealthy. The only system that works in practice is a system that recognizes those competing needs. So, yes, raise taxes on the "wealthy," and, yes, reform entitlements and cut spending. I believe we should balance budget, but through compromise, not through political domination.

If it's such an easy sell, how do you explain the phenomenon laid out in the OP? The tax rates are far less progressive now than they once were. The "rich" have been getting less and less soaked over the last few decades.

All moralizing aside, you can't ignore greed and envy as motivating forces.

 

[Ed Gein]

'equilibrium in taxation and in spending' would depend on 'equilibrium in need and income', an unlikely event. maintaining economic balance is a lot like maintaining an ideal weight.. a grand idea that requires constant adjustment.

geo.

What a darling euphemism for "from each according to his ability..."

Karl would be proud of his legacy.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

this has a familiar ring. well, of course, how does one argue against 'rational spending'? and,' jeepers, we are spending so much... we gotta cut down' as an argument lacks a certain something. reductions based on a view of 'how much' and not on 'what and why' is not on the right route to 'rational spending'. that is not to say your conclusion is wrong, only questionable because your premise is questionable.

'equilibrium in taxation and in spending' would depend on 'equilibrium in need and income', an unlikely event. maintaining economic balance is a lot like maintaining an ideal weight.. a grand idea that requires constant adjustment.

geo.

You want to pin me down on policy? I don't have a specific proposal that won't be woefully inadequate. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I'd be interested in reading specific proposal, however.

When I say "rational spending" I mean better justifying our expenditures and tracking outcomes. One of the chief criticisms of government is inneficiency and waste. Inreasing revenue isn't productive if we spend it too inefficiently. Government has to be more adaptable and more readily able to admit and confront policy failures in order to be effective and affordable. How do we do that? Heh ... I'm open to suggestions. You make a fair point in focusing on "what and why" versus "how much" as a rational approach, but "how much" does matter, both because of the political environment and because resources are finite, and if you take too much and redistribute too much, you create perverse incentives.

As for "equilibrium," I was referring to the interplay between economics and the political environment. Increased taxation is a tough sell in the wake of the tea party movement. The GOP win in November represents a political reality, so the solution to debt has to be conscious of the limits on what is poltically feasible. That may sound like a copout to you, but when I say I'm a moderate, I mean it. I believe in compromise over ideology, but that doesn't mean I reject any notion of morals or ethics. I believe taxation at too high of levels (and 40% is HIGH) is unethical and counterproductive, but I believe it's appropriate to try to ensure equality of opportunity through redistributive policies. As to where the lines are drawn? The political process should handle it. There is no permanent solution. Are economic answers must adapt to our changing poltical needs.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe a rate of taxation above 50% in real money is fair or sustainable?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Why do you think the tax rates we most commonly have had are not appropriate for the future ? Why should future taxes be not nearly as high as they always have been ? How are we now so different than the Americans of the 1950s (when top tax rates were 91-92%, economy was good, the rich didn't leave town). One thing I would change is to cut spending on NASA. The sattelites may be a good idea (some of them), but ideas of going back to the moon are ridiculous. For what ? We didn't get anything from the moon the first time (if they ever even really went there). And George Bush says we should go to Mars ? Pure idiocy, and a huge waste of money.
Generally, I think the overspending is overrated, and we need to stop what overspending is ocurring, AND get back to normal taxation, and stay there. With this deficit, we should have learned our lesson by now, despite the efforts by young, spoiled-brat greed freaks, whose greed has no bounds, and their running-dog politician mouthpieces (Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, etc).

First of all, NASA's priorities have changed. We're not going to the moon anymore.

AS to the rest, I'll try to ignore your hyperbole and name-calling and give my take on high income tax rates.

It's a simple idea, really. Building wealth is something everyone must do. I don't have a pension. My company doesn't even match the 401k contributions. I have to amass enough wealth in my working life to be able to sustain myself and my family in retirement. To do that, I have to be able to keep most of what I earn and also be able to bring in more income in my most productive years. Even if I manage to limp into the top tax bracket (triple figures, not millions) I can't guarantee I'm going to stay there. I need to be able to keep what I earn so I'm not financially dependent in old age.

That doesn't even get into perverse incentives. Why should I work harder if there's no return? If earning more means bringing home less, then I shouldn't try to earn more. Our capitalist system depends on the motivation to earn. High taxation weakens that motivation.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

i said nothing about thievery or deserving.

otherwise, i gotta better things to do than watch a circle jerk.

geo.

ROTFLMAO, So how do you explain this statement, genius?

yes, it is, of course, which is why we tax those who have taken more than they are rightfully deserving of.

geo.

The only jerk around here is the one who doesn't even know what he says! LOL :lamo

 

[Scanner]

Taken more? So the wealthy are just thieves in your eyes? They don't deserve their wealth? Well, by golly mr liberal, who makes the decision on how much someone deserves to have? :roll:

The American people.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

The American people.

Link please?

 

[Ed Gein]

The American people.

This is beyond creepy, it's envy driven lunacy.

Perhaps you would care to cite the part in the constitution to support your mentally defective contention?

 

[Scanner]

What a darling euphemism for "from each according to his ability..."

Karl would be proud of his legacy.

The full quote is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx). Never in American history has this been more applicable to our economic class stratification, and need for restoration (not raise) of taxes on the richest Americans. In 1945, our government & military saved us from the Japs. Now our government must save us from the greed freaks.

 

[Ed Gein]

Link please?

Look for the missing link. I surmise your answer is found there.

 

[Ed Gein]

The full quote is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx). Never in American history has this been more applicable to our economic class stratification, and need for restoration (not raise) of taxes on the richest Americans. In 1945, our government & military saved us from the Japs. Now our government must save us from the greed freaks.

Your envy seethes like flop sweat. Must suck to be you.

 

[Geo Patric]

What a darling euphemism for "from each according to his ability..."

Karl would be proud of his legacy.

as if you would know.

geo.

 

[Scanner]

Link please?

Link to what ? It's simple. In a free society, it is the people who collectively decide how their society is to be run. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. That includes the tax system. Especially that.