Remember early in his presidency, Bill Clinton obtained a substantial increase
in upper bracket tax rates. The wealthy never forgave him for it, and this was
a big part of Clinton's problems later. BUT, the resultant deficit
reductions fueled a decade long boom (good for everybody including the wealthy).
When George W. Bush became president a first priority for him was to nullify
Clinton's upper bracket rate increases. This he did, but such coupled with
off-the-budget wars fueled the debt load we have today. The evidence clearly
supports Professor Davis' point of view.In capitalism the
wealthy get all of it in the end. Progressive tax policies have money circulate
through more hands before it gets to the rich guys. This is literally the way
it is in our current system - the one we have to play with for now.
Thank you Richard for reporting the facts and giving us some common sense into
this debate. It's obvious that we need to raise taxes, especially on the
wealthy. We are an industrialized nation and have a lot to pay for.Unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of static noise today. These
folks cannot be reasoned with and will provide you with really long drawn out
excuses (without any facts) for how we don't need to raise taxes. They are essentially the Ayn Rand followers who must be ignored. They've
been given enough power already. We've seen their economy policy from the
1980s until now... And it isn't pretty!
We all hate taxes, even Democrats.But, as the article suggests, our
country had some very prosperous times with much higher tax rates. In fact, can someone cite prosperous times when our taxes were not higher than
they are today?Taxes have become such a flash point issue, that we
must throw logic and common sense out the window when the word TAX is
mentioned.Every potential GOP presidential candidate said they would
reject any plan that called for a $1 tax increases, even when coupled with $10
in spending cuts.Why? The GOP base demands it. Grover Norquist
demands it. And they all signed a pledge. Where is the common sense to that?How refreshing would it have been if one of them was brave enough to
scream "HEY, you would have to be crazy, as a conservative, to pass up that
deal"I sure hope the Democrats don't ever sign a pledge to
NOT cut entitlements.
Re: ". . . schizophrenia over taxes is not surprising."Thanks, Prof, for the predictable liberal sophistry.It's not
schizophrenic to demand common sense and accountability in tax policy. We may
all agree taxation is inevitable in civilization, but when taxes rise to
deranged, confiscatory levels, they becomes immoral and un-American.Liberals, so concerned with political victory, ignore the immense chaos they
wreak by their enforced national profligacy. Like the committed alcoholic, they
mock solutions to their tax-and-spend addiction that don't involve more
taxes, more spending, and more dependence on Big Government.This,
notwithstanding the fact that the fruits of their deranged, vote-buying
addiction are patent -- destruction of the family, particularly in inner-city
America; destruction of the health care system; destruction of millions of jobs;
and, most chillingly, destruction of the American soul of millions of our
countrymen, that cynically, opportunistically reduces them to serfdom.While liberals may have rendered true the familiar liberal mantra of the
headline banner, they refuse to address the obvious questions -- why, and what
can be done about it?
Mr. Davis, it isn't that I hate paying taxes, because I do understand the
value of some government services. What I hate is the unchecked appetite that
government has for tax money often with little or no accountability. We waste
hundreds of billions of dollars in this country and a large amount of my tax
dollars are lost through fraud and mismanagement of government programs. No one
benefits from those dollars except criminals. So, when I complain about having
to pay more, it is only because I want better accountability for the money
currently being taken from me - money that I could use to help people in need,
help my children and grandchildren, use to support local businesses, etc.
Instead it is money that goes into the huge black hole of government. I already
pay in taxes enough money to support another family. How much is enough without
Like all the progressives/liberals I have heard another taxes are good pitch. Mr
Davis and the rest of you progressives if you like taxes so much why don't
you(thats You) just go ahead and pay more? If taxes are so good step up and pay
them. Progressives mantra is spread the wealth which eventually becomes spread
You want to balance the budget. Revenues. Cuts alone will never do it in 100
Yes, agreed. In addition to returning to the tax rates of the
sixties, we should also institute a carbon fee and dividend plan, as noted in
David Folland's op-ed today 'We're Gambling with our
Future'. Such a fee would be a great economic development incentive AND
would provide tax relief for all citizens.
Re:1Observer"Instead it is money that goes into the huge black hole of
government"The biggest black hole there is resides in Defense.
Defense hasn't been able to account to the GAO for the money it spends.
YET, i've not heard a single Republican raise that issue.
Surveys show that most Americans think that taxes are much higher than they
really are. This holds especially true for conservatives. The 400 wealthiest
America families, with an average annual income of 300 million dollars, pay an
average of 16% of their income in federal taxes. For middle income Americans,
federal income taxes average around 10%. That is hardly a "confiscatory"
Progressives are always very good at spending other peoples money. When, in the
last fifty years has the federal government EVER decreased spending? The
sequester is the ONLY time that republicans were able to reign in government
spending. No one is advocating abolishing all government, but when they look
into the future, they see an economic collapse. It would be better for everyone
to experience a little pain now, than a lot of pain in the future.
I don't hate taxes. I love them. It's the price I pay for clean water,
safe streets, a nice neighborhood school, fighter jets protecting my country.
The alternative is unthinkable.
Excellent article, Mr. Davis.I also appreciated the reminder by
Marxist about the prosperity under Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthy, and
the economic disaster under George W. Bush, who slashed taxes on the wealthy.
With Americans growing fed up with Republican extremism, maybe we can elect a
Democratic House in 2014 and return taxes more to Clinton-era levels to get the
@ 1Observer: Right on! I will be happy to pay more taxes when I stop seeing
"smart" government people spend a million bucks for A) something that
only costs $250 if you have any clue what you're doing and B) something
that is totally unnecessary for any reason whatsoever.And this goes
10-fold at the state and local level. It's why I think all government
employees (not just Congress) ought to have term limits. After a few years of
spending other people's money, go back to spending your own already.@Truthseeker: I am a Republican who worked as a civilian on a Navy base
for several years. Yes, defense spends money as foolishly and unnecessarily as
anyone else. But to say they're the only federal department who should ever
be cut in any way, as most Democrats have said in my lifetime, flies in the face
of all common sense.I think all federal government departments
should be cut by vast quantities of people and it would make the country a
better place. You know the old saying: What do you call a million
federal workers losing their jobs?A good start.
An excellent analysis; however, I could never advocate taxing the rich more
until we tax the entire population. Over half of Americans pay nothing in
Federal income tax. In fact many (myself included) receive money on our tax
returns through refundable credits - credits that allow you to receive more
money on your return than you paid in during the year. In the past 3 years I
have received well over $10,000 that I never paid in! It's ridiculous! I
make a reasonable salary that supports a family of 5, pays the mortgage, and
provides a comfortable (not extravagant) living. Why shouldn't I be
expected to contribute? Until we decide the "rich" need to bear the
burden of funding our government programs let's ask the largest segment of
the population to at least contribute something. If that segment of the
population is unwilling to have skin in the game I think it's time to claw
back on government programs.
Truthseeker...because defense is not the biggest black hole. All
the entitlement programs add up to much more than defense, and that is where you
will find the biggest black hole, or fraud if you will. Fix them all.As for increasing taxes on the rich Mr. Davis, it would only be a good thing
if those increased taxes were spent on the "right" things. And that is
where the argument begins. What is right.
Re: TruthseekerI didn't exclude defense in my comments you just
assumed I meant to. Well, I didn't. There is fraud and abuse there as
well and there should be accountability at all levels in every program in every
facet of government, especially at the federal level. One fact I
failed to mention is that, as reported last week, for the first time in the
history of our country, more people were receiving some type of government
entitlement program (not including Social Security retirement benefits) than are
working full time. I think the number presented by the Census Bureau represents
about 48% of the US population receiving entitlements. That is a disturbing and
unsustainable trend. It would be foolish to throw more money at these problems
before we do some housecleaning and establish some accountability.
Another terrific article from Richard Davis. Thank you so much for blessing our
community with common sense and good research.
I am proud to pay my taxes to the American government of the United States of
America. There is no other government, business, religion or organization in
the world that would give me more for my money. Even so, there are
people who would complain about sharing the benefits of our society with the
others. I view these people as enemies of America and my enemies as well.
@VoiceofReasonSo you think it's more important to tax a family of 4
making 25,000 a year than it is to tax someone who makes 20, 50 or 100 million a
year? That's insane. First to say 49% of people don't pay taxes simply
aren't true. They pay sales tax, property tax(even renters pay, at lease
mine do, I figure the tax amount into the rent I charge.) Gas tax (even if they
take the bus, the gas still has sales tax attached. Your power, water and
natural gas bill all include taxes. Ya, lets tax the poor even more, then we can
hand them back their money in the form of medicaid, SNAP or Section 8. You know,
since we've decided that it's bad to let people starve in the streets.
Or we could increase the tax on the top 1% by 1%, get more money than taxing the
poor and not put those people out on the streets.
What was the old rallying cry before the Revolutionary War? No taxation without
representation? We have reasonably responsive representation at the state and
local level but what about national? During the recent fed. govt
"shutdown" the President was insisting on a "clean CR".
Translation: complete renewal of current federal spending levels with no input
from our elected representatives in the legislature on what programs should be
funded. I.E.- perpetual money printing and debt. That's fine but someone
explain why we bother electing Representatives if the President dictates the
budget and changes laws (ACA e.g.) according to his whim? I will agree
with Mr Davis that the Federal Govt needs more revenue. But why not expand the
tax base instead of targeting specific groups? Why not get rid of the EITC? The
program is riddled with fraud and the IRS has admitted it's unable to
administrate it. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates made their fortunes selling
technology to the common man - not just the wealthy.
When the 1% who owns 80% of the wealth -- and pays LESS of a percentage
than the other 99%....SOMETHING is out of whack!Warren
Buffet [a true Capitalist] has it all right, and the Tea-Party Republicans
have got it all wrong.
Increased taxes would be more acceptable if there was a consensus that our
government was also addressing waste, fraud and programs that are in place, but
ineffective. Accountability is poor (Lois Lerner and the IRS), carelessness is
rampant (the ACA roll out) and extravagance is common (military and other
government contracts). Using tax revenue to compensate for bureaocratic
inefficiency is not acceptable. Sending hard earned wages to our government
without knowing precisely how they will be used is rightly a difficult sell.
Open Minded MormonSomething like the top 5% of wealth earners pay
something like 70% of all taxes in the U.S. See what statistics can do? By the
way, you think Warren Buffett pays enough taxes? Or in your geographic case,
Bill Gates? Most T-Party Republicans are not rich. In my case, I've had
my wages lowered and my health care go up. All this just to keep from being
unemployed. All this because of the Democrats and Obama. I was doing much
better under Bush and the Republicans. I'll bet the majority of the
country will be saying the same thing as me about election time next November.
"Progressives are always very good at spending other peoples money."But let's be fair. Conservatives are good at it too. But they would
rather borrow from our children than ask the wealthiest among us to contribute
at historic levels to our society. Conservatives would rather see people starve
than see a billionaire pay 1 percent more in taxes.Government
spending--even with a bloated military, Obamacare, an aging population (higher
Social Security and Medicare payments), and lingering effects of the Great
Recession--is projected to be lower in the next few years than it averaged
during Reagan's eight years in office. Yes, we can cut some of the fat, but
the big problem is what Prof. Davis points out. We have the lowest tax revenues
in since 1950.Some will complain about the proverbial 47 percent.
But there is a reason they do not pay income tax. At least half the population
is underpaid and underemployed by our corporate masters who would rather replace
American workers with technology and cheap foreign labor. Anything, as long as
the savings go into the pockets of the already obscenely wealthy rather than to
the common laborer.
happy2,It's easy to blame the party you don't like for how
things are now, but the toasted economy we have now was a long time in the oven.
If you want to trace our current economic woes to any particular time period,
try Reagan's disastrous and self-contradictory economic policies.
Supply-side, trickle-down economics has given us the mess we enjoy today. And
yet the Republicans continue to preach the same stale old ideas. They just give
them new names.
Those of us who have been watching government for more than a year or two know 1
thing that will always be true:It matters NOT how much we pay the
government, they ALWAYS will want more.
"Translation: complete renewal of current federal spending levels with no
input from our elected representatives in the legislature on what programs
should be funded."Did you miss the part where Congress voted to
spend the money that caused us to hit the debt ceiling? They approved every
penny. It has nothing to do with a "renewal of current federal
spending levels"It has everything to do with paying the bills
that have come due based on the spending levels approved by congress.
Lew ScannonOK Lew, if you want to go back to previous big spending
presidents, then I get to go back to two of the oldest and biggest, namely
Johnson and Roosevelt. Care to try for James Buchannan next? The here and now
is all that matters, don't try to evade Obama and the Democrats
responsibility for the last 5 years in this by using previous Presidents.
Things were better for myself and others during Bush. And that in spite of the
wasted money on a 10 year wild goose chase for WMD in Iraq.
go for it Mr. Davies, I could not agree more.
@red state prideCottonwood Heights, UTI will agree with Mr
Davis that the Federal Govt needs more revenue. But why not expand the tax base
instead of targeting specific groups? ======== Let me
explain it thus:1. Because the top 5% have 90% of all of
America's wealth taken out of the econmy, stuffing it away in tax-free
tax-shleters like Mitt Romney does in the Caymen Islands and secret Swiss bank
acocunts.MOST of America's wealth never gets taxed.2.
Because those who make those $100's of Millions of $ won't have to
change or adjust their already extragagent living or loose a wink of sleep, go
to bed hungry, or loose any of their summer, spring or winter vacation homes or
have to take out a 2nd loan to pay for any other it.3. Because --
Jesus said were much is given, much is expected.Shall I continue?...
Voice of Reason and Noodlekaboodle,There is no doubt that folks who
do not directly pay income tax still pay a variety of taxes. And I am not
advocating a tax structure that would make them pay significant tax, but I do
think that the "skin in the game" argument is cogent. That most should
pay something (even a pittance) such that all feel that they have a reason to be
watching carefully what is spent. We do not benefit from a concept of "hey,
it's not my money they are spending".
Nonsense. I'll never be able to make him see, our minds do not talk the
same language. Funding the Egyptian military is NOT providing a service I want,
the majority of the expenses the US government provides, I neither want nor
need. Sure you can tax the rich, go right ahead and drive them out of the
country. They can afford to move, and they will. Read Atlas Shrugged. When they
have had enough of mob rule, they'll leave in droves, and "we" will
be left holding the bag. Dream on, I only hope I don't life long enough for
your tax and spend utopia (like Detroit?) to establish itself everywhere...
Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness.Thou shalt
not covet. Still three very important principles for all societies.
re:1Observer and othersGood, glad we all agree Defense spending needs to
be reduced. Now if we could only get Republican legislators on board. In fact,
Romney wanted to increase military spending. Now, regarding the
claim (made by a conservative radio host and CNS)that according to the new
census data, the number of Americans who receive means-tested government
benefits -- welfare -- now outnumbers those who are year-round full-time
workers," Politifact rated that claim false:"The
data used, described the situation in 2011, not today. In addition, current
numbers look quite different from 2011 when the country was at a lower point in
its slow climb back from a deep recession. The article also pointed to the
original data tables where it was clear that at the very least, the numbers
could have blurred the distinction between those who work and those who are
counted as recipients.The failure to note the large numbers of
children (The number of recipients includes millions of children under the age
of 16) and elderly in the recipient group is also a significant lapse in the
context of comparing them to the number of full-time workers.
"3. Because -- Jesus said where much is given, much is expected." (not
exactly a quote cause I had to change were to where) Please point
out in the Bible that Jesus asked the gov to take your money?Jesus was
telling us that we (the people) need to take care of the less fortunate. Boy,
when I look at all the good the rich do in helping universities, churches, and
people anonymously it makes me sick that they are so demonized. And
I'm not anywhere near the 1%, so don't think it's because
I'm one. No one has stopped the bonuses, the parties, the videos
being made by gov agencies with our tax money. Maybe it is a small amount, but
my mind still has a hard time getting around millions when they are talking
about billions/trillions. There is no accountability in this
administration. I refuse to fund 0bama's solyndras and all the rest. Just
put forward some way to deal with the fraud, maybe that will help.
"The large increase in wage inequality is one of the main drivers of the
large upward distribution of household income to the top 1%, the others being
the rising inequality of capital income and the growing share of income going to
capital rather than wages and compensation. The result was a more than doubling
of the share of total income in the U.S. received by the top 1% 1979-2007.The significant income growth at the very top of the income distribution
over the last few decades was largely driven by households headed by an
executive or was employed in the financial sector. Executives, and workers in
finance, accounted for 58% of the expansion of income for the top 1% and 67% of
the increase in income for the top 0.1% 1979 to 2005. These estimates understate
the role of executive compensation and the financial sector in fueling income
growth at the top because the increasing presence of working spouses who are
executives or in finance is not included.From 1978 to 2011, CEO
compensation increased more than 725%, with 5.7% growth in worker compensation
over the same period."(Economic Policy Institute)
Tax Changes effective Jan 2013Some of the Bush tax cuts for upper
income expired this year. Higher income earners--households making over $450k
the top marginal tax rate is increasing to 39.6% from 35%.Taxes on
capital gains and dicidends goes up to 20% from15%.A Medicare surtax
is a 3.8% additional tax on net investment income, which is income from
interest, dividends, tax exempt bond interest, royalties, rents and capital
gains, among other things. This tax applies to taxpayers with modified adjusted
gross income that exceeds a threshold ($250,000 for married filers and $200,000
for singles). The result is a 23.8% tax rate on capital gains and dividends
higher income taxpayers. Beginning in 2013, taxpayers with incomes
in excess of certain adjusted gross income (AGI) levels (singles at $250,000,
married jointly at $300,000, head of household at $275,000; married filing
separately at $150,000) will lose some or all of these exemption deductions. Phase-out of itemized deductions:Tax payers with the same AGI
levels as above, can lose up to 80% of their deductions for mortgage interest,
property taxes, state income taxes and charitable deductions.
Let's put aside fantasy and deal with realities. Even if you think them
"unfair" " UnAmerican" or doesn't conform to your
philosophical/ political preferences.Reality 1) Politicians need to
maximize in a sustainable manner the amount of tax revenue they collect in order
to TRY to pay for entitlement programs which were put in place by themselves and
predecessors. They will do this out of a sense of responsibility and/or a desire
to be re-elected. As a result of the Prisoner's dilemma, countries will
compete with each other for sources of tax revenue and job creation. Politicians
don't get rewarded for helping other countries to the detriment of their
Reality 2) The "tax equation" is "taxable income/capital gains"
times "income/ capital gains rate" equals "taxes paid". Quoting
rates ( whether income or capital gains) in isolation is meaningless and
misleading. The significant indicator is "tax paid";Reality
3) In a progressive tax system, the top 1% of taxpayers (aka. Golden Geese) pay
over 1/3rd of the total personal taxes paid. This is true even though this group
tends to pay more than other groups at capital gains rates. As a result of
globalization these Golden Geese are no longer bound to remain in a given tax
regime in order to make and maintain their wealth. Countries actively recruit
and compete for these Golden Geese, by making their jurisdiction more tax
friendly than others. Therefore income/ capital gains tax revenues will drop in
jurisdictions which the Golden Geese deem as taxing too heavily. Increasing
taxation on this group (aka "tax the rich") will increase these
departures and accelerate the loss of total taxes collected. (Note: For real
life example look at Eduardo Saverin and the record number of American
Reality 4) Taxing international companies that deliver unique services delivered
directly to devices ( eg Google and Twitter) are not as easily corporately taxed
as companies which deliver standardized tangible goods either at retail outlets
(eg Starbucks) or through courier/ mail (eg Amazon). With 3D printing becoming
widespread and cheap; more tangible goods companies will be ones delivering
programs on-line. This also makes it more difficult to apply VAT (ie consumption
taxes) taxes on more and more goods. Therefore "Fair Tax" proposals will
generate a dwindling amount of tax as this trend continues (Note: Puts those
silly 3D food printing pioneers in a new light doesn't it!)
Reality 5) Financial transactions are quickly and easily moved between
jurisdictions and not easily taxed. Therefore "Robin Hood" tax proposals
are DOA, since any country trying to implement such a program will find a rapid
loss of their financial markets to jurisdictions which do not implement such a
tax. (Note for a real life proof look at the immediate loss of financial markets
in the 11 EU countries which recently put in a financial transaction tax to the
other 20 odd which did not);
Newsflash: Taxes have already been raised on the wealthy.For the
year 2013, there is a new top tax bracket of 39.6%. There are also two new
surtaxes starting in 2013: An additional Medicare tax of 0.9% on wages and
self-employment income, and a net investment income tax of 3.8% on the lower of
modified adjusted gross income or net investment income. Taxpayers in the
highest tax bracket of 39.6% potentially face a combined 43.4% (39.6% + 3.8%)
marginal tax rate on their income.I suspect that the top 400
earners’ marginal rates are so low in part because of the "carried
interest" rule which magically taxes wealthy hedge fund manager’s
earned income at lower capital gain rates. To be very clear, their compensation,
not the amount they invested, if any, is taxed at capital gains rates simply
because they are rich and have lobbied congress to keep this ridiculously unfair
rule in place.I suggest we wait and see how much revenue these
already higher tax rates bring in, but immediately repeal the unfair carried
When 40 cents of every Federal dollar spent is borrowed there is obviously a
mismatch between income and expenditures. However -- if taxes are raised will
the annual deficit be reduced or will our Lords And Masters in Washington just
merely increase the total level of spending ?How about at least a token
income tax on the 47% who now pay no income tax ?
Everyone knows how much wasteful spending the Federal government is guilty of.
Giving a wasteful government more money is not the answer -- cutting spending
is. PERIOD. That's not even debatable. Just cut everything.
Live within your income, Uncle Sam! Don't penalize the American people and
economy by sucking more money out.
It just always erks me when somebody says, "Tax hikes are needed on a
specific group of Americans" (usually a group they are not part of).IF tax hikes are needed... and we have "equal protection under the
law"... then there should be a tax hike on EVERY citizen (not just small
groups, groups of citizens small enough that they can't defend themselves
against the tax hike at the ballot box).I don't love the
wealthy, I just see all of us as equal. So it bugs me when we pass laws or tax
hikes that only target a small group of citizens.This time the
target group is the wealthy. But what if the target group were a racial
minority, or a religious minority, or a ethnic minority? I think there would
be outrage (rightfully so). But the Democrats have succeeded so well at
vilifying the wealthy... that nobody cares when they pass laws that only effect
them.Remember the story of the man who didn't do anything when
they came for the jews (because he wasn't a jew). Until they came for him
and nobody was left to defend him?
When will there ever be enough revenue for government?
Higher taxes for the rich are just passed on to customers anyway. Karl Marx
wanted the government to provide a good chunk of what Mr. Davis is praising.
Cut Medicaid, Social Security give us more of our money. Government is for
order and to protect people's life liberty and property. It is not to rob
one person to pay another. Those European countries are going broke that have
cradle to grave benefits.More money people keep more they can spend
themselves, Can help neighbor without being forced and can benefit more people
as they have discretion over more money. Taxes on rich are ultimatly passed on
other people to pay for there expenses anyway.
@higv"Higher taxes for the rich are just passed on to customers
anyway." False. Assume my salary is 500K, so my federal taxes
have gone from $175K in 2012 to approximately $215K in 2013 (as a result of
expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the ACA). To whom am I going to pass my tax
increase of $40K on? Last time I checked, I don't have any customers!
"Those European countries are going broke that have cradle to grave
benefits."False. Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, and
Finland all have higher ranked health systems than the USA, and all have Debt to
GDP ratios less than half of the USA.
@DavidSLesperanceIRC Section 367 imposes a very stiff U.S. exit tax
on your so-called "Golden Geese" and effectively negates the tax
advantage of expatriation for U.S. residents . The more people leave, the more
tax revenue we collect. Regarding the EU financial transactions
tax, your facts are entirely incorrect. This tax does not even exist yet. The
earliest implementation date possible, if member states ratify (and there is a
lot of push-back), is now mid-2014. There has been virtually no financial
transaction flight in the EU.
Stuff,So who are you referring to with your three commandments?
Those who oppress the wages of the poor, who steal from their employees, who lie
about how much wealth they really need, and who covet even the widow's
mite? Then I agree with you.
The highest federal tax rate is now 39.6% (for 2013) plus 3.8% net investment
income tax plus phase out of exemptions plus loss of up to 80% of most itemized
deductions. So the top rate can approach 45%. Why should the rich pay 45% when
almost 50% of the population pay almost no taxes? Why should the rich pay a
higher % than other taxpayers? It is hard to compare the tax rates of the past
to the present because many of the tax deductions of the past have been
eliminated (interest on most personal loans, tax shelters, reduced pension
limits, etc.). I feel a better measure is what % of Gross Domestic Product has
been collected in taxes. When Ronald Reagan lowered the top tax rate to 28% I
had clients sell stocks, etc. to report income. If you make the tax rates too
high then the rich won't sell anything. I feel we can't tax our way
into prosperity. We need to slow down the snowballs of government spending. We
need sustainable government spending.
"Why should the rich pay 45% when almost 50% of the population pay almost no
taxes?"Good question jmlarsen. The answer would be because the
bottom 50% of Americans own only 1.1% of all the wealth in this country (as of
2010). That's right, read it again, only 1.1% of all the wealth in this
country is held by the bottom 50%. (See: Forget the top 1 percent. Let's
talk about the bottom 50 percent for a minute, Laura Clawsen, the Daily Kos.)
One point one percent. Think about that. (It's really unfortunate that that
number is not common knowledge, perhaps you can help spread the word.) But anyway, obviously, now that you know that number you no longer feel a need
to raise taxes on that bottom 50% right? And you also, clearly now, recognize
how offensive Mitt Romney's 47% comment was.