Published: Friday, Nov. 30 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
The Democrats have it backwards: Instead of Tax-and-spend they have been
Spend-then of necessity-tax.They also think that the rich get away
with no taxation when in reality it's the 49% that pay nothing at all on
the bottom of the scale.I hope we can survive the next 4 years of
foolishness because the last 4 have been a strain, for sure.
Marginal tax rates are far different from Effective tax rates. Mr Romney is a
perfect example. Forget all the details. Lets look at the big
picture.The richest Americans have been getting "richer" at
an accelerated pace. The wealth of this country is moving steadily upward.So, rather than carp about fairness and who pays what, I am asking those
on the hard right to answer 3 simple question.1) Why is the wealth
steadily collecting at the top? This is the most critical question.2) Is this trend good for our country?3) What, if anything, should
be done to reverse the trend.Until you look at what is actually
happening, and WHY, and the ramifications, you are arguing the wrong things.
Toosmart..did you read the last paragraph? If instead of taking the taxes on
the rich back to where they were before Bush, you just limit everybodys
deductions guess who's taxes go up..yours, your kids, your neighbors etc.
So rather than seeing someone who makes 3 million dollars a year lose 6%
you'd rather lose all your deductions (mortgage, kids, charitable
deductions). This is exactly why Romney refused to answer the question which
deductions would you eliminate. If he didn't eliminate his he was
All the "revenue gain" estimates in this letter assume that everyone
(especially the rich) will continue to do exactly as they are currently doing no
matter how high the tax rates go up. This is a complete misunderstanding of
basic economics.As the tax rate increases so does the incentives
to:1) Not work. Why start a business, work 80 hour weeks, and take a
huge risk if all the rewards go to someone besides you and your family? Play
golf instead.2) Move someplace where taxes are lower. Rich people can pick
up and move anywhere.3) (Most likely choice) Spend even more time and
effort developing tax avoidance strategies with your accountant and lawyer
instead of growing your business. This makes the accountants and lawyers rich
instead of the regular worker bees who get layed off because the business
suffers.Maybe that is the main reason behind this whole strategy.
After all, many people in Congress are closely tied to the lawyer industry.
Joe,Can you tell me what you think is a reasonable top tax rate?We hear how Reagan created lots of jobs by lowering the tax rate.But, his tax rate was significantly higher than today's (or under
Clinton)How is it that Reagan's tax rate was ripe for job and
economic growth, but today's rates (which are lower) are not?Please explain.
Good.higher taxes will pay off the debt. Isn't that what repubs
were all concerned about?
RE: The Real Maverick. Higher taxes will NOT pay off debt--it will give
Dem's more to spend.RE: Joe Blow (a suitable name for him
I'm sure). The rich are getting richer because they are more industrious.
The reason they are standing out more is because there are so many more dead
beats standing around waiting to be spoon fed by the government.
Maverick, Have you heard one anyone in Govt. promise that any monies created by
tax increases will be used the lower the debt? I haven't. The only way to
lower the deficit is to lower spending. Our Fed Govt. currently is spending
75% of the income of everyone, every day.
Obama is bluffing about the "fiscal cliff" because it mandates cuts in
federal spending! Cutting federal spending is poisonous to Obama, he plans to
increase it substantially! Look folks, we are going to get massive tax increases
from Obama anyway, at least if we go off the "cliff" we will get
something for our increased taxes! Let the media and the DNC blame the
Republicans, they will anyway! Remember the Boston Tea Party? We need another
one and it seems to me this "fiscal cliff" is the best option for our
country. After all, what is the alternative? Massive tax increases without
spending cuts? Economic suicide!
To "JoeBlow" when were incomes more equal and wealth more evenly
distributed? What was different in the past than today?Here is the
biggest thing to consider. Why is it that the more government adds to the tax
code in an effort to make things more equal things actually become less equal,
withe the rich benefitting the most?Logically we can assume that
simplifying the tax code and cutting the rates will result in greater income
equality and higher incomes for the middle class and poor.
Of course this is just for the middle class and the "1%" making over
250,000 a year. the real 1% doesn't and still won't pay taxes and if
they do, they would just be paying the taxes to themselves because they are the
real (unelected) government.
"Why is it that the more government adds to the tax code in an effort to
make things more equal things actually become less equal, withe the rich
benefitting the most?"I disagree with the premise.Congress adds to the tax code to cater to some group that just happens to give
them money (lobby, campaign etc).That is why it is not uncommon for
the uber wealthy to pay a lesser rate than those making far less.Same with
Corporations. "when were incomes more equal and wealth more
evenly distributed"Pretty much ANY time in the past. The wealth
has been steadily heading upward.There was a time when CEO's
averaged only 30 times the wage of their workers. Now it is 300+. Why is
that?Some of our highest paid people now are in the financial
industries. They create nothing, but have figured out how to make money huge
amounts of money.Would you please answer the 3 questions I posted
earlier. That is a much better starting point for discussion.
RE: Anti Bush-Obama. Who exactly is the "real 1%" you're
talking about. The Poor? The number who don't pay taxes is really about
47%, and you would be correct in calling them the real government because they
are the only group government seems to be worried about. Or the rich? The top 1%
of the earners actually pay about 37% of the taxes paid in this country, in
which case your comment would be completely erroneous.
To "JoeBlow" I don't get it. First you disagree with me, then all
of your arguements support what I have stated. You agreed that as tax laws have
become more complex that they have only benefitted the wealthy.You
have partially answered your own questions.Reagan was able to get
things going by cutting tax rates and getting the government out of the way.
Yes it is that simple, you and your ilk refuse to accept that because it gets in
the way of your ideal that government knows best.
TO Joe Blow: "Can you tell me what you think is a reasonable top tax
rate?"Absolutely. 25% should be the top rate! And by "top
rate", I don't just mean Federal Income Taxes. I mean TOTAL taxes.No one should have to give more than a quarter of their money to the
government (all levels of it).And yes, I understand that this would
mean that our government would have fewer revenues than it currently
does...GOOD! I think all levels of government should be much smaller than they
currently are. And yes, I also understand that this would put more money in the
hands of all those "evil rich people" that most liberals despise.I think most of them earned it and I think they will see that it is used
in a much more productive way than a bunch of government bureaucrats would. Less
of it would end up in the hands of Solyndra, the Vegas party animals, and a
million other rat holes.
JoeBlow,here are your questions1) Why is the wealth steadily
collecting at the top? This is the most critical question.2) Is this
trend good for our country?3) What, if anything, should be done to
reverse the trend.Now tell me why these trends have ACCELERATED
under BO?Maybe because his policies that destroy opportunity prevent
those in the middle and lower from being upwardly mobile, while those already up
there can take advantage of the lack of upward mobility on the part of the rest
to consolidate their own wealth?
Redshirt.our tax rates are lower today than under Reagan. Why were
his rates good enough to spur growth, but today, lower tax rates will not.That is the real question"Now tell me why these trends
have ACCELERATED under BO"Don't know that they are
necessarily accelerating, but continuing. And the reason is that Obamas
policies are pretty similar his predecessors.The collection of
wealth at the top has been going on for quite a while.I also notice
that NO ONE on has attempted to answer the questions that I posed.Out of posts on this one.
"...In the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the
Republicans’ fiscal religion. Through the 1984 election, the old guard
earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the
original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, Paul Volcker,
finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new
tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked
Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit
if plied with enough tax cuts. By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters
had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than
they had been since the 1940s. Another change in the economy has
been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Republicans have
been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely
printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on
leverage and speculation.It is not surprising, from 2002 to 2006
the top 1 percent of Americans received 2/3rds of the gain in national income,
while the bottom 90%, got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is the decaying
fruit of bad economic policy.(David Stockman)
what good will it do? The increase in taxes won't run the government for
more than a week. The harm will be to the middle class who are seeking job
openings from the small business's that just got their taxes jacked up but
are now either laying off or simply freezing all hiring. The number of people
who lose their jobs from these tax increases and resulting layoffs will more
than offset any revenue from a tax increase.
You'll have t get some of that 47% to pay federal taxes. That isn't
whom the right thinks it is since most of those people are living in RED states
an are taking advantage of the per chile tax credit. Give up the tax
credit for having a bunch of kids and pay your taxes!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments