Obama's campaign promises government will take from 'rich'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Sept. 17, 2012 5:24 p.m.

    Tax 'em til it hurts.

  • Wanda B. Rich Provo, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 2:52 p.m.

    Maybe it's my bias as an unaffiliated voter, but here's how I see the online comments stirred up by letters like this one.

    A few vocal right-wingers present emotional appeals based on their "principles," which upon closer inspection are simplistic and based on an unrealistic perception of the world.

    In response, left-leaning writers present rational, fact-based, cogent replies that are rather difficult to argue with.

    Then the right-wingers respond with more emotional slogans and a few very questionable statistics.

    The lefties then shoot down both the slogans and the statistics.

    And, as Kurt Vonnegut put it, "so it goes."

    There is a reason Romney is not way ahead in the polls, despite an anemic economy. The few concrete ideas he has proposed do not pass either the sniff test or a simple arithmetic test.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 16, 2012 6:41 a.m.


    - Individual tax rates are at historic lows and have been for 10+ years
    - EFFECTIVE corporate tax rates are at historic lows
    - the Wealth in the US is steadily and increasingly collecting at the top
    - the top 20% own 84% of the wealth
    - in 1965 CEOs of earned 20 times their employees. Today is is closer to 300.
    - in the last 15 years the top 10% is the only group whose wealth is increasing.

    I contend that we are not "punishing the rich".
    And I have supported my position with facts.

    Feel free to disagree with my conclusion, but please support your position with FACTS, as I have done.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 12:51 a.m.

    The premise of most conservative comments is that the super wealthy, that is, the top 1% of the top 1%, have their wealth because of their superior talents and work ethic, at that those of us who are not wealthy are such because we are lazy bums. The reasons are a whole lot more complex than that, but debating such here if virtually hopeless, because it requires some commonality of understanding which is not, nor ever will be, present.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 10:01 p.m.


    Can you site any actual and specific examples?


    Sounds like more leftest nonsense.

    And who is to blame when Obama and the democratic controlled congress run up 1 and a half trillion dollar debts every year?

    Because taxation is using the power of government to deprive another of his money and property.

    Which is why the founding fathers did not tax personal income, they knew taxing personal income would lead the liberal's voting themselves other people's money.

    By the way HOW much of your money and property are we the people entitled to?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 8:59 p.m.

    I'm waiting for the lame-stream media to ask Romney;

    How much is a gallon of milk?
    How much is a gallon of gas?
    How much is a loaf a bread?
    or him being simply amazed at a laser scanner at a grocery store.

    It worked on GH Bush.
    ...and sealed the deal once and for all for Bill Clinton.

    BTW -

    The mean salary [aka middle income] is $50K

    Mittens is so out of touch, it's quite scary.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 6:58 p.m.

    I can sum up Romney's campaign in one sentence:"Let them eat cake." See how easy that is? It's very asinine to try to sum up a presidential campaign in one sentence.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 15, 2012 6:08 p.m.

    Fun game.

    I can summarize the republican campain with "we will go to third world countries and take THIER stuff for you - or rather so our corporations can sell it to you. But you pay for the army."

    And we'll run up the national debt some more and blame it on the democrats.

    There you go.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 15, 2012 5:29 p.m.


    What is the source for the statistics you cite?

    According to the CBO:
    Average before-tax income fell between 2007 and 2009 for households in ALL income quintiles, but the amount of that decline varied by quintile. The declines in before-tax income were 5 percent or less for households in each of the four lowest income quintiles and 18 percent for households in the top quintile. For households in the top one percent, income fell by 36 percent, reducing their share of before-tax income from 18.7 percent to 13.4 percent.

    Perhaps we should examine why the top one percent (those making over $380,000) suffered greater losses during the time period you cited--the stock market plummeted. Twenty-two percent of their income is from capital gains.

    Demographics of the top 1%:
    The top 1 percent of earners in a given year receives just under a fifth of the country’s pretax income, about double their share 30 years ago.
    Most 1 percenters were born with socioeconomic advantages.

    Are you in the top 1%? Does your business cater more to the top 1% or the 99%?

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 4:31 p.m.

    Obama has been going into homes and taking money from the rich, middle class and poor to subsidize cheap labor for business for years.

    Take the Dream money, retrain America, and get our country working again.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 15, 2012 3:43 p.m.

    In 2009, the top 1% made 11.5% of the after tax income in the United States according to the CBO. Between 2007 and 2009 the top 1% 's income fell 37%. Income for the bottom 20% grew 3%. Income for the middle fell 2%.

    So, in plain language, Obama's policies have hurt the top producers 18X more that he has hurt the middle class and now he wants to penalize them even more. How about having a 1st grader teach Obama a little math? Anyone who has ever run a lemonade stand knows more about the economy and raising revenues than Obama.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    When 1% own 80% of everything --
    Logic says the 1% should be paying 80% of the taxes.

    But - I'm a Liberal, and the right-wing thinks I'm "evil" for expecting things to be fair and equal.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Sept. 15, 2012 1:10 p.m.

    Every time I read "I can blah, blah this ENTIRE blah blah in ONE sentence", I know that whatever comes next is going to be a misleading cliche. Sure enough, that's the case this time, too.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 15, 2012 12:27 p.m.

    As a tax executive with 30 years international tax planning experience, it tires me to consistently see these types of letters (protesting the concept of progressive taxation) printed by the DN. Every country in the world I can think of (except Russia) has progressive individual income taxation. It is and has always been THE tried and true way to raise adequate amounts to fund public spending. Progressive taxation is not, and will never be up for debate (other than by a small fringe group of society and a few newspapers who apparently support their misguided notions). So how about we get off of progressive taxation for awhile and focus on something worthwhile that we can impact, like say poverty?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 15, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    Yes we need to control spending. But anyone who thinks we are going to craft a long-term solution without some "revenue enhancement" is dreaming.

    So just how do we "enhance" revenues? There are essentially four options: the poor, the middle class, the rich, and businesses.

    Choose your poison but one or several of them have to take a hit. Given that the poor don't make much, I think that leaves the other three to choose from.

    We can do it via tax rates, we can do it by rolling back deductions. But it will need to be done.

    My prediction? Look for the middle class to take the largest hit (once all the numbers are in). And that is irrespective of who is elected president.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 12:11 p.m.

    The Constitution of the United States of America and other documents imply and promise that ordinary people would have a more fair chance of success in life and that this government would operate in such a way as to guarantee the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to all.

    Some people disagree with that and wish America to be restored to the economic world that existed before the birth of this nation. Their wish is a world where the vary few owned and controlled the world while the rest of the people only existed as needed by the few.

    America didn’t take away the ability of an individual to prosper and have success in his quest for life. In fact it provided an even playing ground for all. However as the few gained the status of rich and powerful, they want roadblocks to be placed in the way of others.

    As a liberal American citizen I ask that our government continue the quest to provide an equal opportunity to all. And that may mean the loss of the roadblocks so dear to the rich and powerful.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 11:35 a.m.

    And yet, raiding the poor, dumping on students, attacking the old, and throwing the middle-class under the bus is so right, necessary, and fair.

    When will we learn that what's good for the rich and corporate elite is NEVER what's right for America?

    The middle-class has disappeared and real wages for real Americans are gone because we've gone decades focuses on "building up" the rich for empty promises that eventually they'd share the wealth with the rest of us.

    Failed "trickle down" economic policies have led to the destruction of the American middle-class and dream.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    Yes, jsf if everyone paid their fair share such as Romney, GE, Exxon, and others of the same ilk. I have no problem returning to the Clinton tax rates. The key to all of this is an increase in revenue. I don't think an extra 3% of your income over 250k will bankrupt you. I don't think feeding what amounts to 20% of our nations children who live in poverty will ruin us. I don't think borrowing money, to rebuild our infrastructure, at rates so low that the bond market would practically pay us to borrow. Japan borrowed to the hilt at rates so low they turned around and sold money a very profitable rates. It would be nice if someone from the right read a history book with perspective.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Sept. 15, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    Mr. Thompsons argument is one of those ideas that seem so right on its face but is so wrong in reality. We live in a representive democracy. For tax law, that means that there is "no taxation without representation"; a principle first innumerated by the Declaration of Independance.

    Robbery by law is not legal. Taxation, regardless of the econmic status of the taxed citizen, is legal. It is legal because our constitutionally elected representatives have ennacted laws that make it legal.

    Mr Thompson is suggesting that legislation reducing the personal wealth of a citizen is akin to robbery. Taken to its logical extreme Mr Thompson's argument means that congress should have no power to tax. If congress has no power to tax then the government cannot exist, and then every law that establishes and maintains the social order will be of no effect.

    By the way, Obama has no power to tax.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    We're probably all going to have to accept a larger tax burden, including the rich. I'm good with that, because it's the price of a free, civil society.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    Could it really be federal taxes are at a sity year low because up to 8% are unemployed and the real unemployment numbers are close to 13%. Maybe if everyone, everyone paid their fair share of taxes?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 15, 2012 8:50 a.m.

    @ Roland. Obama says the rich need to pay a “little bit more” and suggests that will bring in $70 billion more each year to the federal treasury. First, that is pie in the sky but even if that happens it WILL NOT make any difference in our deficits and national debt. Our current federal deficit is about $1.2 trillion. If current government spending stays the same (it will go up) the $70 billion will reduce our current deficit by less than 6%! If we apply the $70 billion to the national debt it only represents a .04375 % deduction of the debt, all else being equal! Big businesses will just pass the tax increases on to the consumer but ask any small business owner what increasing taxes will do them. Clearly we are not going to tax our way out of this debt, we must stop run away government spending. The alternative is certain hyper inflation (already seeing this in energy and food) as the value of our dollar decreases and a Greece like financial collapse is inevitable! We MUST stop the run away spending of the federal government!

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 15, 2012 7:58 a.m.

    Federal taxes are at a sixty year low. Getting them back up to their historical norm hardly constitutes Armageddon. The effective income tax rate paid by the top one percent is 22%. If we doubled that to 44% we would raise 3% of GDP in additional taxes which is what we need to do to get back to our historical tax collection rates.

    Before you start feeling sorry for the rich, if we were to do that, their after-tax share of the national income would still be double what it was in the seventies.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 15, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    Obama is completely wrong for America! If we continue to punish success and disincentive the creation of wealth in America, we will have much less of it at every level. If we continue to reward failure, poor personal choices, laziness and incentivize government dependency, we will have much more of it at every level. America’s decline is being authored and implemented by Barrack Obama and the liberal Democrats with a promise of “economic justice”! Real economic justice is being rewarded for hard work, taking risks and investing in new ideas, not the opposite! When was the last time a poor person offered you a job?