Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: GOP can do better than defending the 1 percent

Comments

Return To Article
  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 6:02 a.m.

    The people voted for Representatives who opposed Obama's tax and spend agenda. The Representatives approve ALL spending. If this election has proven anything, it has proven that the PEOPLE put their trust in a conservative House, a House that opposes Obama.

    Obama can't legislate. His job is to enforce the laws passed by Congress. The Constitution clearly specifies that all spending bills MUST originate in the House. The Senate CAN. concur, but it is not necessary.

    Obama cannot wrie budget legislation. The Senate cannot write budget legislation. The people selected a Republican House that opposes both Obama and Reid.

    Now Obama is wasting taxpayers money by flying around the Country telling the people how stupid they were for voting for Rebuplicans. When will he learn that the campaign is over? When will he learn that we didn't hire him to fly around the Country?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 6:42 a.m.

    But until you start limiting the ability of a very few to purchase our leadership this will go on and on. The well being of our nation is determined by the well being of the middle class not a very few.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 29, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    There is no economical evidence that very low taxes on the top few zillionaires is good for the country, and economy. In fact since the Bush tax cuts, the economy has been in shambles!

    The Republicans have really run out of solutions to govern this country, we tried being very militarily aggressive, and cutting taxes, and it just hasn't worked out.

    The Republicans were shocked by results of the elections because they have become increasingly out of touch in the Fox information bubble. They need to start listening to NPR and CBS, and get back to the rational middle!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 29, 2012 7:50 a.m.

    UT Senator Mike Lee recently discussed tax cuts for upper levels of income on Mike Huckabee's radio program:

    "LEE: People need to understand that the reason we worry about raising taxes on anyone – even raising taxes on the rich – it’s not that we’re looking out for the rich, it’s not that we’re concerned that the rich won’t be able to fend for themselves, because they will. It’s because we worry about the consequences that will inevitably result from that action and that will hit the poorest among us the hardest."

    The best GDP growth and job creation rate in the last 60 years actually occurred when the top marginal income tax rate was between 75 and 80 percent. The worst period for both measurements occurred when the top rate was 35 percent, as it stands today. In fact, job growth and gross domestic product has little, if any, correlation to the tax rate on wealthy Americans.

    Lee authored the Cut, Cap, and Balance constitutional amendment, a proposal so extreme that not even the GOP budget would go far enough in its cuts to be considered legal.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    Marc,
    I’m sorry you have bought into dem fear-mongering.

    Republicans would be smart to help the poor and middle class. They did. The Bush tax cuts helped the poor and middle class more than the 1%. A family of four making $50k saw a 7% reduction in taxes under bush (5% rate cut for $2500 and another $1000 in child tax credits, $3500 is 7% of 50000), but the 1% saw only a 4.6% reduction. Only in dem fear-mongering math does 4.6% exceed 7%.

    And did you see the article on Yahoo yesterday saying your dem-ran CA was the worst managed state for the second year in a row?

    Ugattabkiddn,
    You’re talking about the hundreds of millions BO and his pacs spent, right?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    So the way Mike Lee is defending the GOP is... we must apease the wealthy or bad things will happen to the peasants.

    Seems like a familiar plot in which sacrifices or priceless items are offered for protection from otherwise benevolent beings.

    No thank you sir!

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    One party is the party of greed. The other party takes Jesus' teachings seriously and understands the importance of helping the poor.
    You decide which is which.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    @ lost in DC. Great post! Thank you but I warn you, the liberals on here will call you names and attack your character, your sanity and your devotion to our country all the while telling us and themselves they are the "compassionate ones", the "inclusive ones". In America today, lies and cover-ups from the Obama administration gets a pass in the media and at the DNC but everything a conservative says, is misconstrued and twisted and then reported as fact! If you doubt me, wait and see the vitriol that will be hurled at you on here!

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    J Thompson: "The people voted for Representatives who opposed Obama's tax and spend agenda. The Representatives approve ALL spending. If this election has proven anything, it has proven that the PEOPLE put their trust in a conservative House, a House that opposes Obama."

    You might be surprised to know that while Republicans still ended up sending more representatives to the House then Democrats this last election, Democrats received more than 53% of the votes when adding all votes for the House of Representatives.

    How is this possible you may ask? Republican state legislatures doing what they can to increase Republican representation in the House. Otherwise known as "gerrymandering". Had the districts stayed as before, the House would have swapped to Democratic control.

    Even with the "gerrymandering", Republicans still lost seats in the House. This tells me that Republicans are losing ground and may very possibly lose the House in 2014 unless they change their views and actions.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    JThompson: "The people voted for Representatives who opposed Obama's tax and spend agenda."

    No - Republican gerrymandering of districts produced the Republican majority in in the House of Representatives. Moreover, the GOP majority in the House shrank.

    Taken as a total nationwide, more votes were cast for Democratic representatives than Republican representatives.

    Where gerrymandering is absent, i.e., in the Senate and Presidential races, Democrats won. The Democrats increased their majority in the Senate, and Obama's reelection margin was bigger than Bush's in 2004.

    To claim that the (now smaller and less diverse) Republican majority in the House constitutes some kind of mandate for the GOP's "pamper the rich" tax plan is pure wishful thinking.

    As recently as 20 years ago, the Republican Party was part of the reality-based community. But now, they're gone. The nation misses them.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    Let them go.....
    Let them go....

    I predict a landslide HOUSE cleaning of Grover Norquist Congressmen and Senators in 2014.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    "The Constitution clearly specifies that all spending bills MUST originate in the House."
    It also specifies that the President can veto those spending bills. Tax rates WILL go up if the Republicans don't write a bill that pleases the President. The people WILL blame the Republicans if that happens, just like the people blamed Republicans when the government shut down during the Clinton administration.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    The election may be over, but the propaganda continues. No matter what the GOP does, the hard left and their media lapdogs will continue to push the notion that conservatives only care about rich people.

    Nevermind that wealthy people already pay the lions share of taxes. Nevermind that they supply the majority of capital that makes our capitalist system work. Nevermind that this results in lots of jobs. Nevermind that the majority of rich people were not rich 20 years ago but are "self-made".

    They will continue to insist that all rich people are parasites to society that sleep on piles of gold while "normal Americans" slave away at the factories they own but "didn't build". They will not be happy until rich people give 90% or more of their wealth and income to the government so that they are no better off than anyone else. After all, that is just being "fair", right?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    Excellent letter.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 9:08 a.m.

    Marc- did you know that 8 out of the 10 wealthiest counties in America went for Barack Obama. Why would that be if the Republicans were the alleged "party of the rich"? You should read George Will's column in the DN today. He makes the point that Democrats would prefer to have unelected elite decision makers make choices for people while Republicans have faith in people to make choices for themselves.
    BTW- Romney and Ryan were campaigning to save Medicare- was that "scary" to you Marc?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    JoeCapitalist2 said:
    "Nevermind that wealthy people already pay the lions share of taxes."
    They also receive the lions share of the profit, right?

    Nevermind that they supply the majority of capital that makes our capitalist system work.
    So bailing out the bankers and suppling them with capital is how the system works?

    Nevermind that this results in lots of jobs.
    Not true, just a radio talking point, how many jobs did Rush create last year?

    "They will continue to insist that all rich people are parasites to society that sleep on piles of gold while "normal Americans" slave away at the factories they own but "didn't build".

    Actually I believe it was mitt who was referring to 47% of americans being parasites while he and his ilk did everything the have done by themselves against great odds, while welfare queens live the high life with their free phones.

    But your right we should drop to our knees and thank these wealthy folks for our very existence.

    No thank you.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 9:13 a.m.

    @J Thompson

    The only reason the Republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives is due to gerrymandering.

    Some examples:
    In PA, Republicans got 49.4% of votes for the House seats, Democrats 50.63%. Therefore, PA should have a nearly evenly divided representation in the House, right? NOPE. Republicans hold 13 seats, Democrats 5.

    In OH, Republicans got 51.38%, Democrats got 46.56%. OK, Republicans should have a slight edge, right? NOPE. Republicans hold 12 seats, Democrats 4.

    OK, you'll say that all this is made up in California, where the redistricting was controlled by Democrats (it wasn't - that was done by an independent commission). Let's look: in CA, Republicans got 39% of the vote, Democrats 61%. Republicans now hold 15 seats, Democrats 38. That's just about right (R's hold 28% of the seats, a bit low but not extremely out of balance, as in Ohio and Pennsylvania).

    In Texas, where the gerrymandered map was subject to judicial and Justice Department review, things were more even: R's won 56.8% of the vote and got 66.66% of the seats.

    In every state we should have redistricting done by an independent commission to get fair representation.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    A full 2/3 [i.e., SUPER Majority] of Americans want to see the Bush tax deductions on the 1-2% lapse.

    Who should the President of the United States and Congress listen to?

    The SUPER majority of Americans?
    or the FoxNews, Limbaugh listeners in the minority?

    And Republicans are STILL scratching their heads trying to figure out how they had their hands handed to them 3 weeks ago...

    Turn OFF the radios.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 29, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    The lies perpetuated by the MSM are amazing. I don't think that the liberals actually understood or even understand what the Republicans wanted to do to the rich, or even what the Bush Tax cuts did to the rich.

    The Republicans want to lower the tax rate that the wealthy pay (that is where liberals stop paying attention) and then cut the loopholes that give them tax deductions. What this approach does is it forces a rich person to pay more because they can't deduct as much.

    If the liberals want to persue this course of action, lets take a look at what the "tax the rich" approach has done around the world.

    From the UK Telegraph "Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate"

    From MSN Money "The wealthy are pulling up stakes"

    From Bloomberg "Bono, Preacher on Poverty, Tarnishes Halo With Irish Tax Move"

    From NY Post "Tax refugees staging escape from New York"

    From New Jersey Online "N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart"

    They all tell the same story. You tax the rich too much, and they will leave for more friendly locations.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Nov. 29, 2012 9:49 a.m.

    The letter writer evidently believes the Democrat spin on Republicans. That's sad. Republican policies of expanding economic freedom benefit everybody -- a rising tide lifts all boats.

    It's unfortunate that perceptions win out over reality in politics. That's a definite sign of a poor educational system.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    Democrats SHOULD do better than manipulate class, gender and race warfare
    but apparently intolerance works

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 29, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" what is your source? I looked for a poll matching what you claim, and the only place I could find results similar to what you claim was at an Occupy Wallstreet sponsored site. I guess that means that among uber liberals, only 2/3 want to eliminate the tax cuts.

    Now, looking at polling data that isn't highly skewed to the left, we find that only 40% want eliminate tax cuts for the rich. See "Poll Finds 4 in 10 Favor Ending U.S. Tax Cuts for Wealthy" at bloomberg and "Poll Finds 4 in 10 Favor Ending U.S. Tax Cuts for Wealthy" at McClatchy.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Nov. 29, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    Do you guys truly believe that Obama isn't in the pocket of the 1% just like the GOP? You guys are living in a fools paradise. The 1% is our real government they control everything. Our elected officals regardless of party almost always sell out to them.

    Obama isn't in the pocket of the 1%? Then tell me why Goldman Sachs, Big Paharma and Morgan Stanley (just to name a few) Donated to his campaign?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Nov. 29, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    People are so gulliable if they think our elected officals truly are for the people. They want to be elected for one reason, and that is to get rich. Regardless of party they can lie to us all they want. That's the endgame because they are powermad.

    This is why we need a total ablolition of politicals parties and term limits across the board.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    Excellent letter. And what astonishes me is how passionately Republicans oppose what's really a very small tax hike on the wealthy. And while Romney campaigned on tax cuts offset by closing loopholes, he was never specific about which loopholes would be cut, largely because the math really never did add up on his proposals.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic:

    "They also receive the lions share of the profit, right?"
    Not always. Plenty of rich people go broke because they took a risk that didn't pay off.

    "So bailing out the bankers and suppling them with capital is how the system works?"
    It's not supposed to work that way. You are talking about 'crony capitalism'.

    "Not true, just a radio talking point, how many jobs did Rush create last year?"
    I honestly don't know, but probably more than you or I. I'll bet people like Warren Buffet created lots of them.

    "But your(sic) right we should drop to our knees and thank these wealthy folks for our very existence."
    I never said or implied that. I just think we should stop demonizing them; stop acting like none of them deserve anything they have earned; stop trying to take everything away from them; and stop acting like they do nothing to help the other 90%.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 11:33 a.m.

    Marc's letter had a minimum of praise for either major party.

    Obviously neither party has a monopoly on “truth, justice or the American way”. Clark Kent would be uncomfortable being the poster boy for either party.

    The use of “BO” to identify the President does not promote civil discussion. See 8:05 a.m.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    "Mike Lee: People need to understand that the reason we worry about raising taxes on anyone, even raising taxes on the rich; it's not that we're looking out for the rich, it's not that we're concerned that the rich won't be able to fend for themselves, because they will."

    This coming from a guy who couldn't even make his mortgage payment??? Seriously?

    Yes... Rich people will be able to fend for themselves if the banks cut them sweet breaks and deals which they wouldn't even consider for most of us.

    But thanks Mike Lee for looking out for us poor people who still somehow act responsibly and find ways to make our mortgage payments. We tend to work 2-3 jobs, drive 10 year old cars, skip doctor visits (because we cannot afford them), and not eat out at Chefs Table every single night rather than screw up on not paying our mortgage because we know that the banks wouldn't have mercy on us.

    Mike Lee, once again shows how out of touch he is.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut
    To "LDS Liberal" what is your source? I looked for a poll matching what you claim.
    10:22 a.m.

    ==============

    Nov. 29, 2012
    Taxing the rich remains a popular policy with the American people, according to a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC News.

    60% of poll respondents said they supported higher taxes on annual incomes above $250,000, with 37 percent opposed.

    That number increases to 68% on those making whose annual income is above $500,000.

    Democrats insist the Bush tax cut rate at 35% should be allowed to expire and revert to the previous 39% - a 4% tax increase.
    Republicans are insisting they should remain for all Americans.

    Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told Politico, "I think we ought to take the 98% deal right now." (Two percent of Americans earn more than $250,000 annually.)

    The question remains --
    Will Republicans support Grover Norquist and the minority 37% polled who want no tax increase on the rich --
    or
    Listen to the 68% majority who say extend the Bush rates for the 98-99%, and increase rates by 4% to the minority 1%?

    [Whatever Republicans decide effects them 2014 elections.]

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    Democrats can do better than bailing out special interests keeping them in power like AIG and GM. Democrats can do better than handing out money to special interests keeping them in power like Solyndra. Why does the author of this letter think its the GOP that is defending the 1%. Sure, some Republicans voted to give hard earned taxpayer money to horrible financial institutions like AIG. WAY more Democrats voted for it. The GM bailout was an Obama led initiative. The Solyndra scam was a courtesy of the Obama Administration. Billions and billions of hard earned tax dollars have gone to horrible, corrupt 1% institutions, mostly thanks to Democrats.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 12:32 p.m.

    They can, but, they won't.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    Eric,
    You say it is really a small tax; ok, then why does the left see it as the answer to our LARGE deficit issue? You cannot have it both ways.

    Romney never gave specifics? – can you give me ONE specific BO ever gave (that he actually followed-up on?

    JoeCapitalist, don’t bother with Happy Valley – he thinks 49.2% and 43.7% constitute majorities, so CLEARLY he has NO credibility.

    LDS lib,
    An increase of 400 basis points from 35% to 39% is NOT a 4% increase; 4 is 11.43% of 35. Stop using fuzzy dem math to try to support your point.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 29, 2012 2:50 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" that is not what you stated before. Previously you said "A full 2/3 [i.e., SUPER Majority] of Americans want to see the Bush tax deductions on the 1-2% lapse." the polls do not support that. The polls say people want to tax the rich more, but they don't say that they want the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. In fact, they don't even give any specifics for how they want to apply additional taxes to the rich. They want to raise taxes on those making $250,000/yr or more. That represents 4.2% of taxpayers.

    So, you may have some information, but you don't appear to be able to understand it. Maybe you should leave poll interpretation to others, you are not doing so well today.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 7:10 p.m.

    Sorry Marc but your letter sounds really uneducated. When you talk about untraceable money being poured into the election, I'm sure you were talking about George Soros, Hollywood, etc, eh?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:02 p.m.

    It's a liberal lie that the GOP wants defend the rich.

    The GOP wants to defend EVERYONE!

    You don'' do that by bringing the rich down, you do that by lifting the poor up.

    The GOP want real solutions to our problems,

    Not popular leftest nonsense responses.

    Not things based on hate or fear or envy or covetousness,

    That is a bad way solve problems and create law.

    No, the tax wouldn't hurt the rich, but neither would it help anything. It would just take someone's wmonery away and hand a few more billion to the government.

    While all it means is more spending and more taxes.

    That is not a solution to anything.

    The government has plenty of revenue, it needs to stop spending.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:50 p.m.

    Lost in DC
    I call it a small tax hike, because it is one. And absolutely nobody is saying, or even suggesting, that a modest tax hike on the rich would solve our budget problems. The operative phrase is "needs to be part of a balanced approach." It's a small part of a much bigger package.
    Romney consistently used specific numbers when talking about his goals. But he never offered specifics when talking about how those goals would be accomplished. As for the President, he offered specific proposals on every major issue he addressed.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 11:21 p.m.

    From the UK Telegraph "Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate"-Redshirt

    "The Telegraph’s claim that all the rich have run away because of 50p tax is completely bogus"-Tax Research UK

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 1:32 a.m.

    @J Thompson
    The Republicans kept the house largely because they had enough state legislatures where they could gerrymander seats for electoral advantage (didn't work in Utah but it worked in other states). Fact is even faced with this disadvantage Democrats still picked up some house seats. More importantly... if you look nationwide, more people voted for Democratic house candidates than Republican house candidates by a 3-4 point margin. That's how you know their gerrymandering worked, got fewer votes but won more seats.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 1:40 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "The Republicans want to lower the tax rate that the wealthy pay (that is where liberals stop paying attention) and then cut the loopholes that give them tax deductions."

    Talk is cheap, and they never even voiced a single loophole they would seek to cut. Why should we believe they ever had ANY intention of ever cutting enough loopholes to even things out?

    "Republican policies of expanding economic freedom benefit everybody -- a rising tide lifts all boats. "

    All we've seen in the 30 years since Reagan got into office is rapidly increasing wealth concentration at the top. The boats aren't being lifted.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    I got news for everyone - We are going over the fiscal cliff and the mainstream press has already written the script for who the bad guys are and who the hero is.

    President Obama could not have wished for a better scenario. For the next four years, if anything goes wrong, he can simply sit back in his Oval Office easy chair and say, "Blame the Republicans."

    In fact, Obama can pretty much just take a four year vacation. What does he have left to do really? After all, he got Obamacare passed, Osama Bin Laden was killed on his watch, he's got his appointments to the Supreme Court on the bench and he won re-election. He doesn't have to lift a finger for the next four years and if anything goes bad, he can just blame the Republicans.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 30, 2012 8:01 a.m.

    alt134..thanks. That's my question to Redshirt..what loopholes? I'm actually not being snarky or cynical I really can't figure out what you're talking about. All I can imagine are things like losses, depreciation on equipment, various deductions for certain kinds of hires, and training programs etc. If I'm right this would be disasterous for the Repbulicans and America versus an increase in taxes on capital gains and inheritance. The latter is passive income which in most cases adds nothing to jobs or the economy, and the first is a direct attack on businesses and jobs.

    Help me out here.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 8:52 a.m.

    You guys all hate the loophole problem. But here's the real problem. As unfair as they seem, those loopholes are what keep domestic firms from shutting down their operations here and moving to China. Closing them would certainly raise some revenue in theory, but my guess is that it would just scare more and more businesses overseas. They are already leaving in droves.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    Mark B.
    La Jolla is a beautiful place. I’m glad Romney has enough money he can afford to live there. He is also smart enough to know how to protect much of his money from the irresponsible governments out there.

    Eric,
    11.43% is small? What constitutes large to you?

    No one is saying it will solve the problem? Then why is BO so INSISTENT on it, willing to imperil the fiscal cliff negotiations over it?

    BO NEVER gave specifics in either his goals OR how he would get there.

    Atl134,
    Matheson CHOSE which seat he would run for – your gerrymandering claim is bogus.

    You guys kill me, when BO wins it’s because the people chose him, when dems lose, it’s skullduggery on the part of the repubs.

    Killpack,
    Actually, if we had competitive corporate tax rates, we would not need the loopholes to keep employers here. Why set up shop in a nation that taxes 35% of your income, then taxes your investors again for any leftover income you distribute to them when they can pay a 5-10% corporate tax rate in another developed country?

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    lost in DC,

    I wholeheartedly agree. I would love nothing more than a tax regime here that competes with those in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. However, that isn't even a discussion in Washington. All those corrupt, incompetent politicians talk about is raising taxes not lowering them. Therefore, in order to compete, businesses must take advantage of every loophole. Sure, I'd rather their taxes were just lowered, but that isn't even a possibility with small-minded, living for today politicians who rule our country.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 7:57 p.m.

    So, JoeCapitalist2 says "wealthy people already pay the lions share of taxes," yet I remember conservative defenders of the rich claim that a tax hike on them would have no significant effect.

    In 1982 the marginal tax rate for the rich began to fall. By 1987 it was about 1/2 of the rate it used to be, and has remained at about that level since then. With all that tax relief, the top 1% increased their income ratio over the bottom 90% from about 10 times to about 150 times more. The top 0.01% rose from jumped from about 100 times to about 350 times more.

    So much for trickle-down. When the wealthy began class warfare against the workers they effectively transferred the wealth from the lower and middle classes to themselves. They attacked unions, graduated income tax rates, and government regulations.

    The greatest prosperity in America's last century came when we had robust labor unions, graduated income taxes, and effective regulations on corporate behavior. That kept the playing field even. Now we have suffered for decades with no real increase in income for average working family while the wealth of the wealthy has sky-rocketed.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 9:02 p.m.

    @John C.C.

    There are two schools of thought. One believes that a small minority (the top earning few percent) pays the majority of the taxes. The other believes that the wealthy pay a negligible amount in taxes, i.e., raising taxes on the wealthy will only raise revenues by an insignificant amount. I belong in the latter camp. Either way, those clamoring for higher taxes for the wealthy are dead wrong. Why? Well, that's easy. If the former is true, you can't say the wealthy don't pay their fair share. If the latter is true (which is what I believe) raising taxes DOESN'T SOLVE THE ISSUE, because the added revenues are negligible (by most estimates, raising taxes on the wealthy by the amounts proposed by the White House will increase revenues enough to fund the federal government an extra week or two). Regardless, both scenarios are FAILURES for the left. The real problem is expenses, not revenues. Revenues can only be increased by insignificant amounts. Expenses need radical cuts for any significant change to happen to our deficit and debt problems in this country.

  • rnoble Pendleton, OR
    Dec. 3, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    I am a republican who is dissatisfied with the republican line on taxation. I am for smaller government and wish that more effort was made in encouraging private enterprise rather than having government do whatever the task at hand is.

    However, I fail to see the reasoning that higher taxes will reduce investments in machinery and jobs. I think the opposite is actually true since income taxes are paid only on the residue of business activity. If my company has produced a residue of $10,000 this year and I expect the taxman to take 35% of that, then I can automatically see there is incentive to reduce that residue; if the taxman takes 90% then the incentive to reduce the residue is even greater. In business that means the marginal costs of inputs, whether labor or machinery, has more impact. I can hire that employee that is less productive because the net difference is paid by the lower tax cost. I can add that equipment line because the marginal improvement in product quantity is supported by the lower tax liability.

    Remember! It is easy to forget that taxes are due only if you have made some money.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Dec. 3, 2012 5:49 p.m.

    98% of the country is being held hostage and faces the burden of the fiscal cliff because the GOP won't raise the marginal tax rate by 3% on the wealthiest Americans. And the crazy thing is that so many of the 98% have been convinced that a 3% increase to the marginal tax rate inevitably leads us straight down the road to the Soviet-style communism.

    The facts are in. Trickle-down economics is a failed concept. It's amazing that so many people who've objectively been on the wrong end of it continue defending it like it's a religious principle.