Let's raise taxes on the rich

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Soaring, Jul 15, 2009.

  1. Soaring
    Offline

    Soaring Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    502
    Thanks Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +91
    if there are any left. All that will do is to encourage the rich to seek more and more tax sheltered places to put their money. It will cause them to invest less and less in risk taking adventures and will add to the already down spiraling economic woes of our country. Somebody needs to get Obama out of the economic decision making part of our country, because he obviously does not have a clue.

    washingtonpost.com

    The Deep-Pockets Mirage
    House Democrats would have us believe that the rich can pay for it all.
    Wednesday, July 15, 2009

    THERE IS a serious case to be made that the U.S. income tax system should become more progressive. The average rate paid by the top 1 percent of households shrank from 33 percent in 1986 to about 23 percent in 2006. At the same time, the share of adjusted gross income claimed by that highest-earning sliver of American society doubled, from 11 percent to 22 percent. So, in principle, higher taxes for the well-heeled could make sense -- as part of a broader rationalization of the unduly complex tax code.

    But there is no case to be made for the House Democratic majority's proposal to fund health-care legislation through an ad hoc income tax surcharge for top-earning households. The new surtax would hit individual households earning $350,000 and above. It would start at 1 percent, bumping up to 1.5 percent at $500,000 in income and to 5.4 percent at $1 million. The new levy would begin in 2011 and is supposed to raise $540 billion over 10 years, about half the projected cost of health-care reform. The rest of the money would come from reduced spending on Medicare and Medicaid -- though the surtax for the lower two categories would jump by a percentage point each in 2013 unless the Office of Management and Budget determines that the rest of the bill has saved more than $150 billion.

    The traditional argument against sharp increases in the marginal tax rates of a very narrow band of Americans is that it could distort their economic behavior -- most likely by encouraging them to put more of their money into tax shelters as opposed to productive investments. This effect could be greatest in certain states, such as New York, where a higher federal rate would add to already substantial state income taxes. The deeper issue, though, is whether it is wise to pay for a far-reaching new federal social program by tapping a revenue source that would surely need to be tapped if and when Congress and the Obama administration get serious about the long-term federal deficit.

    That moment may be approaching faster than they would like. Even if Congress pulls off a budget-neutral expansion of health care, the gap between federal revenue and expenditures will reach 7 percent of gross domestic product in 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And that's assuming that the economy returns to full employment between now and then. The long-term deficit is driven by the aging of the population as well as by growing health-care costs, both contributing to Social Security and Medicare expenses. There is simply no way to close the gap by taxing a handful of high earners. The House actions echo President Obama's unrealistic campaign promise that he can build a larger, more progressive government while raising taxes on only the wealthiest.

    Mr. Obama praised the House bill yesterday without addressing the surtax. A far better way to pay for health care would be to end the tax break for employer-provided health benefits, a subsidy that not only artificially pumps up demand for expensive treatments but also disproportionately benefits upper-income earners. Eliminating or, at least, capping it would be good health-care policy as well as good tax and budget policy. Pretending that "the rich" alone can fund government, let alone the kind of activist government that the president and Congress envision, is bad policy any way you look at it.


    We live in a society -
    "of the Government, by the Government, for the Government".
    We are now slaves to A GREEDY government.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2009
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Raising taxes in a recession doesn't sound like a great idea to me, either.

    If Obama calls me, I'll tell him, okay?
     
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    If Barry Obubblehead is losing the WaPo, there is indeed still hope. :eusa_pray:
     
  4. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    We need helathcare.

    For all the strokes that come from the new great depression BO will create if he keeps this up.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,411
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,307
    Hey, at this point if we go into the Second Great Republican Depression that is exactly how the majority of the voters in the nation will see it.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,411
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,307
    Interesting point here. Were I to pay an additional 10% of my gross income for a single payer system, which last year that cracked the very low six figures, but were given what my company pays for my medical coverage in my paycheck, I would have an additional $6000 dollars in my gross for the year. This year, I will make only about half of that. So that additional money that would come from the previous money for the employee provided health care would be even larger.
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Leave it to the Fabians to go around talking about how much money they make. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,411
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,307
    So! Neither ashamed or overly proud of the fact that I work a lot. And that others value my work. Point is that many of us would actually make a profit from the creation of a real Health Care System.
     
  9. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    When are you going to explain to us when Clinton became a republican?

    When does the economy become Obama's responsibility?

    or how the economy didn't turn south until the democrats took over in 2006?
    stupid bastard.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Sweet Willy
    Offline

    Sweet Willy BANNED

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,637
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +180
    The argument is that if we over tax the rich, they'll stop using their money to invest and make more money by doing nothing?

    Sounds fucking great.

    Of course, one of the alternatives is that the 80% of the people who have 7% of the money just decide thay've had enough and TAKE the shit.

    But we'll try taxes first. It's the civilized thing to do. They can thank us later.
     

Share This Page