Soak the Almost Rich- grease up the 'fifth quintile', $100k-250k

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Trajan, May 17, 2011.

  1. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    This is a stand alone article in that Galston here, does not (as he does in other TNR articles) go into the whys and where-fores which are really the heart of this entire issue politically and are the ideological positions that underpins the questions;


    -who among the top 2 quintiles ( right or left), where the money is and the middle to upper middle class reside, is willing to pay higher taxes based on a promise to cut?
    or- alternatively who among those would go along IF they knew that concomitant cuts/shrinkage were taking place? ( Bill Clinton pick up the white courtesy phone please).

    -who among the top 2 quintiles ( right or left), where the money is and the middle to upper middle class reside, is willing to fund the gov. as is?

    -who among the top 2 quintiles ( right or left), where the money is and the middle to upper middle class reside, is willing to go along with tax hikes and not punish the progenitor, (Obama or whomever proposes such)?


    Oh and all of the soak the rich veterans out there, take note....read the article, your case doesn't hold water and never has.



    Soak the Almost Rich

    Obama made a pledge not to raise taxes on the upper-middle class. Liberals should hope he breaks it.
    William Galston
    May 12, 2011 | 12:00 am

    snip-

    During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama famously promised that taxes would either stay the same or go down for households making less than $250,000 a year. But Salam points out that there’s no way of reducing the budget deficit to acceptable levels, let alone financing the kind of federal government Obama favors, while relying solely on income and payroll tax increases for households making more than that figure. Of course, there’s not much that can be squeezed out of the bottom four income quintiles (households making less than $100,000 per year). On the other hand, relying solely on the rich for added revenues would imply tax rates in excess of 75 percent. But what about the well-off but not rich—those in the fifth quintile who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 a year? Can they really be held harmless?

    To dramatize the problem we’re facing, let’s consider the analysis the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane published in January, which looked at taxes and benefits for households in different income brackets. The average couple earning $112,000 and retiring in 2010 will have paid $140,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes, but is expected to receive lifetime Medicare benefits totaling $343,000. Twenty years from now, the same couple would have paid $171,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes and would receive $530,000 in benefits. (Technical note: These amounts are in constant 2010 dollars, adjusted to present value using a 2 percent real interest rate. In calculating net benefits, the authors have taken into account premiums as well as payroll taxes.)

    Or consider the analysis USA Today published last week, which found that Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958—23.6 percent, versus about 27 percent in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. On average, a person making $100,000 this year will pay $23,600 in combined taxes—federal, state, and local, income, payroll, and sales—versus $28,700 in 2000 and $27,300 in 1990. Even when the one-year Social Security tax cut ends, the tax gap between now and a decade ago for individuals making $100,000 will still be more than $3,000.

    Of course, you might argue we’re short on revenues because the tax code has let the very wealthy off the hook in recent decades. Maybe so, but it’s hard to see that in the data. According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the effective tax rate for all federal taxes in 2009 was 18.2 percent. The effective rates by quintile were:

    Lowest -0.9
    Second 6.6
    Third 13.4
    Fourth 17.2
    Top 22.9

    But maybe the real action is within the top quintile of income-earners, with the super-rich making out like bandits. Again, the Urban-Brookings numbers don’t support that story:

    80-90 19.4
    90-95 22.0
    95-99 23.5
    Top 1 percent 26.1
    Top 0.1 percent 27.9

    This is just a one-year snapshot, of course. What about trends over time? We know that the distribution of income has become less equal in recent decades, with those at the top commanding a larger share. You might think that the share of taxes paid by high earners has declined during this period, shifting the burden to those below. But according to the CBO, that hasn’t happened either. While the share of national income for the top quintile and the top 1 percent has risen considerably since the mid-1980s, their share of total federal taxes has risen even more.


    much more at-
    Should Obama Break His Pledge And Raise Taxes On The Upper-Middle Class? | The New Republic


    I strongly suggest reading the entire article, which is free and requires no subscription to view before engaging in the usual firefight which I am sure will erupt. :eusa_hand:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    It is simply amazing that Obama can talk about reducing the debt and deficits and never say anything specific about where he's going to cut spending. He's not going to raise taxes on everybody, no pol is going to ever even suggest that. So he goes after the rich, playing the class warfare card. But the problem is, if he does that he only gets maybe 70 billion in more revenue, out of a 1.5 trillion deficit this year. And yet the Dems fight tooth and nail for a few billion here and there. Un-freakin-believable. At least the GOP has the guts to put something that is painful and unappealing out there, in my book the Dems are gutless hypocritical cowards.

    Back to the OP, now is not the time to be raising taxes, nor cutting taxes either IMHO. On anyody, not until the economy is strong enough to absorb it. We need more people working first.
     
  3. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    I to await his "plan" becasue he has yet to put one out there, he just sloughs around numbers and 'framework'. First we waited a year for his deficit commission, now we are waiting on the 'gang of 6' , whatever. He put dipshit Biden in charge of negotiating with reps., any word on that? and we have not even gotten to the 2012 budget yet either, we are stuck on the debt ceiling, but, hes got a townhall to got to. sooooooo
     
  4. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,775
    Thanks Received:
    12,767
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,728
    It's the Willie Sutton theory of tax policy: "because that's where the money is".

    It's also important to note that when Warren Buffet and Bill Gates advocate for higher taxes on The Rich, they mean the Upper Middle Class in the $100K+ category. Their own wealth is already sheltered in trusts, which they hope to keep that way by pointing at the relatively powerless pigeons who work for a living.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2011
  5. Cuyo
    Offline

    Cuyo Training a Guineapig army

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,681
    Thanks Received:
    942
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Denver, PA
    Ratings:
    +942
    Tax rates for all earners (not just 'The rich,' ALL of them) are recklessly low, as evidenced by the skyrocketing deficits that replaced surpluses as soon as they were lowered.

    It's really quite simple math here folks.
     
  6. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    really? I am not so sure.

    the gov. should tailor its spends by what they take in, thats how I run my household and all of the clowns in DC who have spent ahead of every indicator, got us here, yes they lowered taxes to, but so so what? The fact is they continued to spend after those considerations apparently, were not considered.

    We are here it is now, you want to vaporize the bush cuts? Fine, I want cuts, and a balanced budget amendment among that as well, so we just don't wind up back here again. I just don't trust them, none of them, at all, just take a look at whats happening now.

    I am tired of paying for every boondoggle that rolls down the Congressional aisle, ethanol, new or expanded entitlements, etc.
     
  7. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,775
    Thanks Received:
    12,767
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,728


    Other than the fact that absolute tax receipts actually increased when rates are lowered, you are absolutely correct!

    IOW: It's The Spending STOOPID.
     
  8. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    and here we go-



    Coburn Takes a Break from Gang Talks

    by Trish Turner | May 17, 2011


    A key member of the bipartisan group of senators searching for months for a solution to the nation's debt crisis says he is "discouraged," and fears the so-called Gang of Six cannot come up with a solution.

    "We can't bridge the gap between what actually needs to happen and what people will allow to happen," a clearly frustrated Sen. Tom Coburn told reporters Tuesday. The Oklahoma Republican said, "I'm discouraged," but when asked if he is still a member of the group, Coburn said, "I'm a member of the gang."

    Most signs point to Coburn being out of the group entirely, except for the insistence by the senator himself that those rumors aren't true. His office says he's taking a break from talks.

    Sources tell Fox News the group just met to try to chart a path forward, but Coburn didn't show up. The signal from Coburn is not a good sign for any possible compromise. And it will, no doubt, be a discouraging sign to the many senators on both sides of the aisle who are looking for a way to reduce the debt while also approving a hike in the nation's borrowing limit.


    more at-
    Read more: Coburn Takes a Break from Gang Talks - FoxNews.com


    wonderful.
     
  9. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,775
    Thanks Received:
    12,767
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,728
    Good news. Compromise at this point just ensures crippling deficits.
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    The tax revenues are low because people are not earning as much money, not because the rates were lowered.
     

Share This Page