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.
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.
@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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@J ThompsonThe 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.
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
Lost in DCI 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
They can, but, they won't.
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.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "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 -- orListen 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.]
"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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Democrats SHOULD do better than manipulate class, gender and race warfarebut apparently intolerance works
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.
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
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.
@J ThompsonThe 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.
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.
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?
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?
"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.
Let them go.....Let them go....I predict a landslide HOUSE
cleaning of Grover Norquist Congressmen and Senators in 2014.
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.
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.
@ 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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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!
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.
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?