Obama is completely wrong for America! If we continue to punish success and
disincentive the creation of wealth in America, we will have much less of it at
every level. If we continue to reward failure, poor personal choices, laziness
and incentivize government dependency, we will have much more of it at every
level. America’s decline is being authored and implemented by Barrack
Obama and the liberal Democrats with a promise of “economic
justice”! Real economic justice is being rewarded for hard work, taking
risks and investing in new ideas, not the opposite! When was the last time a
poor person offered you a job?
Federal taxes are at a sixty year low. Getting them back up to their historical
norm hardly constitutes Armageddon. The effective income tax rate paid by the
top one percent is 22%. If we doubled that to 44% we would raise 3% of GDP in
additional taxes which is what we need to do to get back to our historical tax
collection rates.Before you start feeling sorry for the rich, if we
were to do that, their after-tax share of the national income would still be
double what it was in the seventies.
@ Roland. Obama says the rich need to pay a “little bit more” and
suggests that will bring in $70 billion more each year to the federal treasury.
First, that is pie in the sky but even if that happens it WILL NOT make any
difference in our deficits and national debt. Our current federal deficit is
about $1.2 trillion. If current government spending stays the same (it will go
up) the $70 billion will reduce our current deficit by less than 6%! If we apply
the $70 billion to the national debt it only represents a .04375 % deduction of
the debt, all else being equal! Big businesses will just pass the tax increases
on to the consumer but ask any small business owner what increasing taxes will
do them. Clearly we are not going to tax our way out of this debt, we must stop
run away government spending. The alternative is certain hyper inflation
(already seeing this in energy and food) as the value of our dollar decreases
and a Greece like financial collapse is inevitable! We MUST stop the run away
spending of the federal government!
Could it really be federal taxes are at a sity year low because up to 8% are
unemployed and the real unemployment numbers are close to 13%. Maybe if
everyone, everyone paid their fair share of taxes?
We're probably all going to have to accept a larger tax burden, including
the rich. I'm good with that, because it's the price of a free, civil
Mr. Thompsons argument is one of those ideas that seem so right on its face but
is so wrong in reality. We live in a representive democracy. For tax law, that
means that there is "no taxation without representation"; a principle
first innumerated by the Declaration of Independance.Robbery by law
is not legal. Taxation, regardless of the econmic status of the taxed citizen,
is legal. It is legal because our constitutionally elected representatives have
ennacted laws that make it legal.Mr Thompson is suggesting that
legislation reducing the personal wealth of a citizen is akin to robbery. Taken
to its logical extreme Mr Thompson's argument means that congress should
have no power to tax. If congress has no power to tax then the government
cannot exist, and then every law that establishes and maintains the social order
will be of no effect. By the way, Obama has no power to tax.
Yes, jsf if everyone paid their fair share such as Romney, GE, Exxon, and others
of the same ilk. I have no problem returning to the Clinton tax rates. The key
to all of this is an increase in revenue. I don't think an extra 3% of your
income over 250k will bankrupt you. I don't think feeding what amounts to
20% of our nations children who live in poverty will ruin us. I don't think
borrowing money, to rebuild our infrastructure, at rates so low that the bond
market would practically pay us to borrow. Japan borrowed to the hilt at rates
so low they turned around and sold money a very profitable rates. It would be
nice if someone from the right read a history book with perspective.
And yet, raiding the poor, dumping on students, attacking the old, and throwing
the middle-class under the bus is so right, necessary, and fair. When will we learn that what's good for the rich and corporate elite is
NEVER what's right for America? The middle-class has
disappeared and real wages for real Americans are gone because we've gone
decades focuses on "building up" the rich for empty promises that
eventually they'd share the wealth with the rest of us. Failed
"trickle down" economic policies have led to the destruction of the
American middle-class and dream.
The Constitution of the United States of America and other documents imply and
promise that ordinary people would have a more fair chance of success in life
and that this government would operate in such a way as to guarantee the rights
of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to all. Some people
disagree with that and wish America to be restored to the economic world that
existed before the birth of this nation. Their wish is a world where the vary
few owned and controlled the world while the rest of the people only existed as
needed by the few.America didn’t take away the ability of an
individual to prosper and have success in his quest for life. In fact it
provided an even playing ground for all. However as the few gained the status
of rich and powerful, they want roadblocks to be placed in the way of others.As a liberal American citizen I ask that our government continue the
quest to provide an equal opportunity to all. And that may mean the loss of the
roadblocks so dear to the rich and powerful.
Yes we need to control spending. But anyone who thinks we are going to craft a
long-term solution without some "revenue enhancement" is dreaming.So just how do we "enhance" revenues? There are essentially
four options: the poor, the middle class, the rich, and businesses.Choose your poison but one or several of them have to take a hit. Given that
the poor don't make much, I think that leaves the other three to choose
from.We can do it via tax rates, we can do it by rolling back
deductions. But it will need to be done.My prediction? Look for
the middle class to take the largest hit (once all the numbers are in). And
that is irrespective of who is elected president.
As a tax executive with 30 years international tax planning experience, it tires
me to consistently see these types of letters (protesting the concept of
progressive taxation) printed by the DN. Every country in the world I can think
of (except Russia) has progressive individual income taxation. It is and has
always been THE tried and true way to raise adequate amounts to fund public
spending. Progressive taxation is not, and will never be up for debate (other
than by a small fringe group of society and a few newspapers who apparently
support their misguided notions). So how about we get off of progressive
taxation for awhile and focus on something worthwhile that we can impact, like
Every time I read "I can blah, blah this ENTIRE blah blah in ONE
sentence", I know that whatever comes next is going to be a misleading
cliche. Sure enough, that's the case this time, too.
When 1% own 80% of everything -- Logic says the 1% should be paying 80% of
the taxes.But - I'm a Liberal, and the right-wing thinks
I'm "evil" for expecting things to be fair and equal.
In 2009, the top 1% made 11.5% of the after tax income in the United States
according to the CBO. Between 2007 and 2009 the top 1% 's income fell 37%.
Income for the bottom 20% grew 3%. Income for the middle fell 2%.So,
in plain language, Obama's policies have hurt the top producers 18X more
that he has hurt the middle class and now he wants to penalize them even more.
How about having a 1st grader teach Obama a little math? Anyone who has ever run
a lemonade stand knows more about the economy and raising revenues than Obama.
Obama has been going into homes and taking money from the rich, middle class and
poor to subsidize cheap labor for business for years. Take the Dream
money, retrain America, and get our country working again.
re:MikeRichardsWhat is the source for the statistics you cite? According to the CBO:Average before-tax income fell between 2007
and 2009 for households in ALL income quintiles, but the amount of that decline
varied by quintile. The declines in before-tax income were 5 percent or less for
households in each of the four lowest income quintiles and 18 percent for
households in the top quintile. For households in the top one percent, income
fell by 36 percent, reducing their share of before-tax income from 18.7 percent
to 13.4 percent. Perhaps we should examine why the top one percent
(those making over $380,000) suffered greater losses during the time period you
cited--the stock market plummeted. Twenty-two percent of their income is from
capital gains. Demographics of the top 1%:The top 1 percent
of earners in a given year receives just under a fifth of the country’s
pretax income, about double their share 30 years ago.Most 1 percenters
were born with socioeconomic advantages.Are you in the top 1%? Does
your business cater more to the top 1% or the 99%?
Fun game. I can summarize the republican campain with "we will
go to third world countries and take THIER stuff for you - or rather so our
corporations can sell it to you. But you pay for the army."And
we'll run up the national debt some more and blame it on the democrats.There you go.
I can sum up Romney's campaign in one sentence:"Let them eat cake."
See how easy that is? It's very asinine to try to sum up a presidential
campaign in one sentence.
I'm waiting for the lame-stream media to ask Romney;How much is
a gallon of milk?How much is a gallon of gas?How much is a loaf a
bread?or him being simply amazed at a laser scanner at a grocery store.It worked on GH Bush....and sealed the deal once and for all for
Bill Clinton.BTW - The mean salary [aka middle income]
is $50KMittens is so out of touch, it's quite scary.
@ScrewdriverCan you site any actual and specific examples?No?Sounds like more leftest nonsense.And who is to
blame when Obama and the democratic controlled congress run up 1 and a half
trillion dollar debts every year?Because taxation is using the power
of government to deprive another of his money and property.Which is
why the founding fathers did not tax personal income, they knew taxing personal
income would lead the liberal's voting themselves other people's
money.By the way HOW much of your money and property are we the
people entitled to?
The premise of most conservative comments is that the super wealthy, that is,
the top 1% of the top 1%, have their wealth because of their superior talents
and work ethic, at that those of us who are not wealthy are such because we are
lazy bums. The reasons are a whole lot more complex than that, but debating
such here if virtually hopeless, because it requires some commonality of
understanding which is not, nor ever will be, present.
Facts- Individual tax rates are at historic lows and have been for
10+ years- EFFECTIVE corporate tax rates are at historic lows- the
Wealth in the US is steadily and increasingly collecting at the top- the
top 20% own 84% of the wealth- in 1965 CEOs of earned 20 times their
employees. Today is is closer to 300.- in the last 15 years the top 10%
is the only group whose wealth is increasing.I contend that we are
not "punishing the rich".And I have supported my position with
facts.Feel free to disagree with my conclusion, but please support
your position with FACTS, as I have done.
Maybe it's my bias as an unaffiliated voter, but here's how I see the
online comments stirred up by letters like this one.A few vocal
right-wingers present emotional appeals based on their "principles,"
which upon closer inspection are simplistic and based on an unrealistic
perception of the world.In response, left-leaning writers present
rational, fact-based, cogent replies that are rather difficult to argue with.Then the right-wingers respond with more emotional slogans and a few
very questionable statistics.The lefties then shoot down both the
slogans and the statistics.And, as Kurt Vonnegut put it, "so it
goes."There is a reason Romney is not way ahead in the polls,
despite an anemic economy. The few concrete ideas he has proposed do not pass
either the sniff test or a simple arithmetic test.
Tax 'em til it hurts.