These are not the class warfare droids that you are looking for.

[OliverH]

The law says that a progressive tax system is not a "penalty" but the rhetoric says otherwise. To say that these folks are not paying enough and that is unfair implies that they have done something to create this unfair situation and should be punished.

The rhetoric about taxes being a penalty comes from the right, not from the left, and you require invidious interpretation to make it otherwise. To say that they are not paying enough and that it is unfair doesn't imply that they should be "punished," or even that they are directly responsible (though given the pretty obvious and direct correlation between money and political access, it's hard to believe that they haven't exerted themselves to influence things in their own favor). An increase in their tax rates isn't a "penalty" or "punishment." It simply represents a change so that they ARE paying a greater and--in the opinion of those like myself--fairer share.

As for "raising taxes for people on the bottom" i never actually said that. What i meant to imply was that as long as they are NOT paying any income tax, they should shut their pie holes about those evil, idle rich are ARE paying taxes and a lot of them. You cannot complain about fairness as far as how much you are paying in taxes compared to someone else when you are paying nothing. That system seems MORE than fair as applied to that particular group, especially when a pretty fair percentage of those folks are being given the money collected from the top 50% DIRECTLY in the form of things like EBT/SNAP payments these days. My complaints about injustice stem from the idea that those who have more for whatever reason and already pay more are not paying enough.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but then you're saying that the rich are NOT overtaxed, that the poor should NOT pay more and/or have their benefits cut, but what ticks you off is really just the presumption and ingratitude and entitlement of those darn poor people. (And who's the class warrior in this conversation?)

Still, it seems like a double standard. Nobody suggests that the rich shouldn't be able to advocate for a tax system that benefits them more than the current one does, or to claim that it would benefit the overall economy and for society as a whole to reduce their taxes, that in short, if we keep the rich happy, we all do better. (As I understand it, this is pretty much the standard GOP position.) In fact, one sees it constantly hammered home here that (at least when it comes to people who are doing really well) self-interest is not incompatible with public good. But it sounds like you're saying that none of that applies to people at the other end of the income spectrum, who aren't entitled to have an opinion or input about how taxes should be levied or distributed, and that in their case self-interest not only disqualifies them but is a moral affront.

In that case, instead of pretending that we're still some kind of representative democracy, we should officially revert to a system where only people who are propertied are allowed to vote in the first place, or something similar. Maybe a model corresponding to voting stock in corporations, but instead of getting one vote per share, we weight people's votes proportionally to their AGIs. However, I must say, given the recent trajectory of things, accelerated by the Citizens United decision, I'm not sure that will be necessary.

[Nordic Viking]

True. the higher amount of over $1.7 million was from 2010, not 2011. He made about the same in 2005 and almost $1 million in 2006. I guess those book sales picked back up after 2008. of course, that doesn't count the $1.4 million in Nobel money and the profits from his children's book he gave away. Shouldn't have he given that to the government instead? After all, they know best how to use it.

Saying that he gave away millions does not bolster your argument, you do know that?

[Triton]

They are paying slightly more, but very little, and not nearly to the extent that the other chart (like so many similar items trotted out to defend the wealth and privilege of the wealthy and privileged) was concocted to have us believe. Here's a page with a couple of worthwhile graphs showing a calculation of the total tax bite across all income groups. There doesn't seem to be much difference in the total percentage of income paid for taxes once you get past the third quintile of income.

So then even by your own number it seems that you are forced to agree with me that in fact the top income earners in the country are in fact paying a higher percentage of the taxes than their percentage of income earned. On what planet is that "fair?" Especially when one considers that nearly half of our population pays no taxes whatsoever? Again, it seems if we actually want to be "fair" we should be reducing the tax burden of the wealthy not raising it.

[Triton]

I bear no ill will or hatred toward the rich, it just seems right and fair to me that they pay a much greater percentage of their income or wealth in taxes than do people who are a lot worse off.

Why? Is it because they have the means?

[jspaxton]

I started out at the lowest tax bracket and have now entered into the 30% plus federal bracket. Every month I literally write a check to the federal government that equals what I used to make in a year. I am not rich, I don't make my money off investments, and this taxation all but guarantees I will likely never be rich. The taxes create a wall that hold me and every middle class working person back. That is what is meant by class warfare. The goal of government seems to be to keep everyone poor.

1. A person on welfare makes as much or more than a person at an average middle class job (about 32,000 a year). So why work? The government encourages dependency/poverty.
2. The government will waste billions but ruin an individual over a few thousand dollars owed to the IRS
3. There is no limit on public assitance. We are not investing in the future of people and their development, we perpetuate/reward failure and Obama seeks to punish success.

I could go on and on.......

[jspaxton]

Let me say it this way. . . . There are taxPAYERS who are working toward financial success and every time there is talk of increasing the taxes on the rich. .. The upper middle class suffers because the wall just got bigger between them and future success. The taxPAYERS then don't feel the tax is fair. Then there are taxTAKERS. . . members of the 40% who already don't pay tax, but take the benefits handed to them by the government. They feel the other 60% don't pay enough because they don't have the same financial success but feel they deserve everything the taxPAYERS have. . . . without doing the work. These people think raising taxes on everyone else is fair because it benefits them without any further sacrifice. Then there is a group of taxPAYERS who are content to be where they are financially and don't even want to try to penetrate the "Wealth wall" and think its ok to increase taxes and/or the size of the wall. I think these taxPAYERS should donate to nonprofits to help the poor and stop trying to have the government take more of my money in the form of taxes. Besides, the nonprofits are more efficient/less wasteful than government.

[jdm61]

I didn't say that the "poor" should not have their benefit s "cut". A number of the people who are currently receiving certain government benefits should have them cut TOTALLY, but that is an argument for another day. As for income tax, perhaps some of the "poor" who are not paying any should, in fact, pay some nominal amount. It does not seem "fair" that so many do not pay ANY income tax, especially if you are talking about raising the taxes of the people who do pay, which is what Obama wants to do by going back to the old Clinton era rates. By the way, I think that you will find that a HIGHER percentage of people were paying back then. Wasn't Old Bill the epitome of fair?

The rhetoric about taxes being a penalty comes from the right, not from the left, and you require invidious interpretation to make it otherwise. To say that they are not paying enough and that it is unfair doesn't imply that they should be "punished," or even that they are directly responsible (though given the pretty obvious and direct correlation between money and political access, it's hard to believe that they haven't exerted themselves to influence things in their own favor). An increase in their tax rates isn't a "penalty" or "punishment." It simply represents a change so that they ARE paying a greater and--in the opinion of those like myself--fairer share.



So correct me if I'm wrong, but then you're saying that the rich are NOT overtaxed, that the poor should NOT pay more and/or have their benefits cut, but what ticks you off is really just the presumption and ingratitude and entitlement of those darn poor people. (And who's the class warrior in this conversation?)

Still, it seems like a double standard. Nobody suggests that the rich shouldn't be able to advocate for a tax system that benefits them more than the current one does, or to claim that it would benefit the overall economy and for society as a whole to reduce their taxes, that in short, if we keep the rich happy, we all do better. (As I understand it, this is pretty much the standard GOP position.) In fact, one sees it constantly hammered home here that (at least when it comes to people who are doing really well) self-interest is not incompatible with public good. But it sounds like you're saying that none of that applies to people at the other end of the income spectrum, who aren't entitled to have an opinion or input about how taxes should be levied or distributed, and that in their case self-interest not only disqualifies them but is a moral affront.

In that case, instead of pretending that we're still some kind of representative democracy, we should officially revert to a system where only people who are propertied are allowed to vote in the first place, or something similar. Maybe a model corresponding to voting stock in corporations, but instead of getting one vote per share, we weight people's votes proportionally to their AGIs. However, I must say, given the recent trajectory of things, accelerated by the Citizens United decision, I'm not sure that will be necessary.

[OliverH]

I didn't say that the "poor" should not have their benefit s "cut". A number of the people who are currently receiving certain government benefits should have them cut TOTALLY, but that is an argument for another day. As for income tax, perhaps some of the "poor" who are not paying any should, in fact, pay some nominal amount. It does not seem "fair" that so many do not pay ANY income tax, especially if you are talking about raising the taxes of the people who do pay, which is what Obama wants to do by going back to the old Clinton era rates. By the way, I think that you will find that a HIGHER percentage of people were paying back then. Wasn't Old Bill the epitome of fair?

Conservatives need to make their minds up about what kind of policies they want. One big reason people pay no (or negative) taxes is because of the various tax credits and deductions available---the earned income tax credit is a big one, for instance, or child tax credits, which are instrumental in the infamous scenario of how a family of four with a $50K income can pay no income tax, or (for the last couple of years) the "Making Work Pay" tax credit. For the last 30 years this strategy--tax credits and deductions--has been pretty much exactly the conservative approach/solution to every social and economic ill. One could just as well do away with such things, collect taxes from those folks, then turn around and write benefit checks to them instead, but the net effect would be the same, and as conservatives have correctly pointed out, it's a lot less efficient way to deliver the same benefit. This is why Milton Friedman favored this approach, which he described as the "negative income tax."

And we should note that many of these credits and deductions not only mean that some people pay no or negative tax, but also mean that many people who DO pay taxes pay a good deal less than they would otherwise. So if what you're implicitly proposing is to get rid of them, I guess the question you might ask yourself and your compatriots is whether the satisfaction they might derive from extracting a few hundred bucks in taxes from a poor person is worth the additional few hundred bucks (sometimes more, sometimes less) that they themselves would end up sending to Uncle Sam. And don't forget to point out that the people at the top end of the scale would not be affected. But if that's what you want, and if you can find a few office-seekers somewhere who are eager to back a tax increase on the poor and middle classes while leaving the rich alone, good luck getting them elected.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) doesn't do much for the middle classes and above, but it's one credit that in the past conservatives happily signed up for, because it targets the benefit to the working poor, and does not apply to those who do not work. The very point of that particular feature is to help alleviate the problem by which people can do better by not working than they do by working. So you could get rid of that, but then I'm not sure right-wingers would have much of a leg to stand on when they trot out the time-worn rants about how the system shouldn't reward non-working people while doing nothing to encourage them to get jobs and be productive.

[jspaxton]

the fact is that if you instituted the "buffet tax" it would raise about 40 billion dollars a year. this would not even cover 2 weeks of current government programs. If you took every dollar from the "one percent" you would still have a major deficit. The republicans should pass a law taking 90% of the income from billionaires for a year and then ask the liberals to take care of the rest of the deficit. The point is they won't do it because taxing the rich can't solve every americans financial woes. the math just isn't there. The American people dependent on government are going to have to learn to take care of themselves and the politicians wont tell them this for fear of the next election. All of us are like drug addicts to these entitlements and at this rate we won't learn until we as a country hit rock bottom like an addict alone on the streets.

[OliverH]

the fact is that if you instituted the "buffet tax" it would raise about 40 billion dollars a year. this would not even cover 2 weeks of current government programs.

I don't think anybody thinks, nor has anybody who knows anything ever claimed, that the Buffett Rule is some kind of panacea. The question is, why would anybody oppose the principle underlying it?

[quietmike]

I don't think anybody thinks, nor has anybody who knows anything ever claimed, that the Buffett Rule is some kind of panacea. The question is, why would anybody oppose the principle underlying it?

Because we prefer freedom over socialism.

[Triton]

I don't think anybody thinks, nor has anybody who knows anything ever claimed, that the Buffett Rule is some kind of panacea. The question is, why would anybody oppose the principle underlying it?

What is the principle underlying it? If the point is not to raise revenue then what is the point?

[OliverH]

Because we prefer freedom over socialism.

So a system that requires the rich to pay as least as high a percentage of their income as the poor and middle-class is "socialism?" In the mouths of the right, the word is beginning to lose its meaning entirely.

[Triton]

the fact is that if you instituted the "buffet tax" it would raise about 40 billion dollars a year. this would not even cover 2 weeks of current government programs. If you took every dollar from the "one percent" you would still have a major deficit. The republicans should pass a law taking 90% of the income from billionaires for a year and then ask the liberals to take care of the rest of the deficit. The point is they won't do it because taxing the rich can't solve every americans financial woes. the math just isn't there. The American people dependent on government are going to have to learn to take care of themselves and the politicians wont tell them this for fear of the next election. All of us are like drug addicts to these entitlements and at this rate we won't learn until we as a country hit rock bottom like an addict alone on the streets.

According to the CBO Obama's Buffett Rule will raise – stand well back – $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit. If you want to mark it on your calendar, 514 years is the year 2526.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/bu...obama-tax.html

So you have to ask yourself, if the "buffet rule" isnt intended to solve any financial problems what is it intended to do?

[jspaxton]

So a system that requires the rich to pay as least as high a percentage of their income as the poor and middle-class is "socialism?" In the mouths of the right, the word is beginning to lose its meaning entirely.

the poor pay NO TAX. So does this statement mean the rich should pay nothing?

[Triton]

So a system that requires the rich to pay as least as high a percentage of their income as the poor and middle-class is "socialism?" In the mouths of the right, the word is beginning to lose its meaning entirely.

Wrong question. Instead of forcing the "rich" to pay more... why not have the poor and middle class pay less?

[OliverH]

the poor pay NO TAX. So does this statement mean the rich should pay nothing?

Only if you are careful to avoid or ignore the phrase "at least." As in, Mitt Romney's and Barack Obama's effective tax rate should be at least as high as yours. Agreed?

[jdm61]

Because if it has no legitimate fiscal purpose and is being proposed merely out of some sense of "fairness" then it has no purpose other than to punish.

I don't think anybody thinks, nor has anybody who knows anything ever claimed, that the Buffett Rule is some kind of panacea. The question is, why would anybody oppose the principle underlying it?

[jdm61]

Conservatives would probably be happy leaving the tax rates where they are now. The fact of the matter is that if the Bush era tax rates sunset, more people in that lower 50% ARE going to be paying Federal income tax. Personally, I say that if Obama will not sign off on letting ALL of the current "cuts" renew, then let ALL of them sunset and go back to the old Clinton rates including eliminating the current base rate AND the elevated deductions and credits. That would result in a surplus just like it did back then, right?

Conservatives need to make their minds up about what kind of policies they want. One big reason people pay no (or negative) taxes is because of the various tax credits and deductions available---the earned income tax credit is a big one, for instance, or child tax credits, which are instrumental in the infamous scenario of how a family of four with a $50K income can pay no income tax, or (for the last couple of years) the "Making Work Pay" tax credit. For the last 30 years this strategy--tax credits and deductions--has been pretty much exactly the conservative approach/solution to every social and economic ill. One could just as well do away with such things, collect taxes from those folks, then turn around and write benefit checks to them instead, but the net effect would be the same, and as conservatives have correctly pointed out, it's a lot less efficient way to deliver the same benefit. This is why Milton Friedman favored this approach, which he described as the "negative income tax."

And we should note that many of these credits and deductions not only mean that some people pay no or negative tax, but also mean that many people who DO pay taxes pay a good deal less than they would otherwise. So if what you're implicitly proposing is to get rid of them, I guess the question you might ask yourself and your compatriots is whether the satisfaction they might derive from extracting a few hundred bucks in taxes from a poor person is worth the additional few hundred bucks (sometimes more, sometimes less) that they themselves would end up sending to Uncle Sam. And don't forget to point out that the people at the top end of the scale would not be affected. But if that's what you want, and if you can find a few office-seekers somewhere who are eager to back a tax increase on the poor and middle classes while leaving the rich alone, good luck getting them elected.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) doesn't do much for the middle classes and above, but it's one credit that in the past conservatives happily signed up for, because it targets the benefit to the working poor, and does not apply to those who do not work. The very point of that particular feature is to help alleviate the problem by which people can do better by not working than they do by working. So you could get rid of that, but then I'm not sure right-wingers would have much of a leg to stand on when they trot out the time-worn rants about how the system shouldn't reward non-working people while doing nothing to encourage them to get jobs and be productive.

[quietmike]

So a system that requires the rich to pay as least as high a percentage of their income as the poor and middle-class is "socialism?" In the mouths of the right, the word is beginning to lose its meaning entirely.

If that is what the leftists truly wanted, why not a flat tax with no exemptions or deductions?

The truth is that you guys are following Marx's 10 planks to a tee.