Dems War Against Prosperity

[red states rule]

Every two years, the Dems hit the trail with the same talking points. One set of talking points is how rotten the US economy is

Even with records highs on Wall Street, low interest rates, near full employment, record home ownership, and a growing economy - Dems STILL keep pushing the doom and gloom fairy tails



The Democratic War Against Prosperity Marches On
By Lawrence Kudlow

Democrats in Congress and on the presidential trail are intensifying their high-tax war against prosperity and the so-called rich. Their latest salvo includes more tax penalties on successful investors and entrepreneurs, such as a proposed 4.3 percent surtax on high-income earners and a tax assault on the private-equity buyout industry.

The surtax allegedly would raise sufficient revenues to exempt middle-class folks from paying the alternative minimum tax. But the income threshold for this surtax has been alternatively suggested at $500,000, $200,000 or as low as $75,000 to $100,000, depending on the amount of new spending and earmarking envisioned by the Democratic Congress.

Meanwhile, Democrats (and some Republicans) are taking aim at the booming private-equity buyout industry, especially the much-ballyhooed public offering of Steve Schwarzman's Blackstone Group. It seems these buyout guys are just too rich.


Up to now, Blackstone's authoring statement had envisioned some kind of two-tiered tax plan, where ordinary corporate compensation would be taxed at the 35 percent corporate rate, while high-risk investment-fund profits would be taxed at the 15 percent cap-gains rate. But Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mon., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, want Blackstone to pay the much higher corporate tax on all its income.

Normal salaries and income from straight-out financial services arguably should be taxed at the corporate rate. But the investment partnerships inside Blackstone constitute risk-taking. For example, if the risks don't pay off with profits, there is no income to be taxed. So, should the Baucus-Grassley plan set up a new multiple tax on capital, it would have negative consequences on economic growth while diminishing the economic clout for risk-taking.

And this is just the start. The next step will be to raise the overall tax on private buyout partnerships, even though there's no intent to go public. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin suggests more than doubling capital-gains taxes on these partnerships, telling a Washington conference that the lower rate on capital gains hasn't contributed one iota to the economy.

For the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/the_democratic_war_against_pro.html

 

[Dangerman]

I'm a moderate, not affiliated with any party, and I must say you sure love that cocaine of yours.

 

[red states rule]

I'm a moderate, not affiliated with any party, and I must say you sure love that cocaine of yours.

Are you saying Dems do NOT want to raise taxes?

 

[SolarEnergy1]

Are you saying Dems do NOT want to raise taxes?

usually when they start out with "I'm a moderate" that usually means it's a lib IMHO

 

[ScreamingEagle]

usually when they start out with "I'm a moderate" that usually means it's a lib IMHO

like a "moderate" is someone who is for a surtax on incomes somewhere between $75,000 and $500,000...

 

[Toro]

usually when they start out with "I'm a moderate" that usually means it's a lib IMHO

That's silly.

 

[Hamiltonian]

usually when they start out with "I'm a moderate" that usually means it's a lib IMHO

Normally when someone starts talking about class warfare, that person is a liberal too. However, here RSR is indicating the Democrats are waging a class war against the rich. This thread defies expectations

 

[red states rule]

Normally when someone starts talking about class warfare, that person is a liberal too. However, here RSR is indicating the Democrats are waging a class war against the rich. This thread defies expectations

Libs are always waging a class war against the producers. They have been doing it for over 40 years

 

[red states rule]

usually when they start out with "I'm a moderate" that usually means it's a lib IMHO

or they say they are a progressive

 

[Hamiltonian]

Libs are always waging a class war against the producers. They have been doing it for over 40 years

What if the top 25% of earners had to pay 67% of all taxes, do you think that is too much?

 

[red states rule]

What if the top 25% of earners had to pay 67% of all taxes, do you think that is too much?

Actuallty the top 25% of earners are currently paying 85% of the Federal Income taxes

 

[Hamiltonian]

Actuallty the top 25% of earners are currently paying 85% of the Federal Income taxes

Yes, I know that and never said otherwise. Now, will you answer the question:

What if the top 25% of earners had to pay 67% of all taxes, do you think that is too much?

 

[red states rule]

Yes, I know that and never said otherwise. Now, will you answer the question:

What if the top 25% of earners had to pay 67% of all taxes, do you think that is too much?

I would like to see a flat tax. You, me, and Bill Gates, all pay the same rate

Of course, the entire Federal tax code is flushed down the toilet at the same time

 

[Hamiltonian]

I would like to see a flat tax. You, me, and Bill Gates, all pay the same rate

Of course, the entire Federal tax code is flushed down the toilet at the same time

Come on, it's a simple yes or no question. Don't you think it would be unfair to lump 2/3 of the tax burden on the top 1/4 of earners.

What if the top 25% of earners had to pay 67% of all taxes, do you think that is too much? Yes or no.

 

[red states rule]

Come on, it's a simple yes or no question. Don't you think it would be unfair to lump 2/3 of the tax burden on the top 1/4 of earners.

What if the top 25% of earners had to pay 67% of all taxes, do you think that is too much? Yes or no.

Of course the current burden of taxes is unfair

I have said that many times

Libs want to give tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes in the first place

 

[Hamiltonian]

Of course the current burden of taxes is unfair

I have said that many times

Libs want to give tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes in the first place

Why is it so tough to answer a simple question? My post did not mention the current tax burden. I am not talking about what liberals want. Couldn't it seem unfair to have the top 1/4 of earners have to pay 2/3 of all taxes.

What if the top 25% of earners had to pay 67% of all taxes, do you think that is too much? Yes or no.

 

[Toro]

Here's a reason why the tax burden should continue to be shifted to the wealthies, put forth by a former Bush adviser.

A new argument is emerging among the pro-globalization crowd in the U.S., the folks who see continued globalization and trade as vital to the country's prosperity: Tax the rich more heavily to thwart an economically crippling political backlash against trade prompted by workers who see themselves -- with some justification -- as losers from globalization.

The sharpest articulation of this view comes not from one of the Democratic presidential campaigns, but from economist Matthew Slaughter, who recently left President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers to return to Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business.

"Policy has become more protectionist because the public is becoming more protectionist," Mr. Slaughter and his frequent collaborator, Yale political scientist Kenneth Scheve, write in the new issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. "And the public is becoming more protectionist because incomes are stagnating or falling."

Globalization, the two academics argue with unswerving conviction, is good for the U.S. It has boosted productivity and made the country wealthier. It's done the same for many other countries. But the benefits of this global integration -- and the accompanying revolution in information and communications technology -- have been distributed unevenly.

There are some very big winners. Think investment bankers, hedge-fund partners, Wall Street lawyers, others whose skills are in high demand globally and those with big stock portfolios. But there are a lot of Americans -- even many college grads -- whose wages haven't kept pace with inflation.

WSJ ($)

 

[liberalogic]

I would like to see a flat tax. You, me, and Bill Gates, all pay the same rate

Of course, the entire Federal tax code is flushed down the toilet at the same time

A regressive tax is both unfair and hurtful to both the middle and lower classes. When we say a "flat tax," we inherently assume its fairness because everyone is being taxed the same. But think about it: if we are taking 10% of everyone's income, how much more does that impact a family living on $10,000 per year than a family living on $3 million a year? For one family, it's the difference between groceries and rent, for the other it is meaningless. If we want to work proportionally and towards fairness, the tax rate should be based on the impact that the money makes on each family.

It amazes me, though, because all of today's "red states" were blue 40 years ago because of the traditional democratic tax policy and extension of government. It wasn't until civil rights became an issue that realignment occurred and the southern states magically turned red. Many of the southern republicans adopt republican tax efforts because they stand on the same platform as social conservative reformation.

 

[red states rule]

A regressive tax is both unfair and hurtful to both the middle and lower classes. When we say a "flat tax," we inherently assume its fairness because everyone is being taxed the same. But think about it: if we are taking 10% of everyone's income, how much more does that impact a family living on $10,000 per year than a family living on $3 million a year? For one family, it's the difference between groceries and rent, for the other it is meaningless. If we want to work proportionally and towards fairness, the tax rate should be based on the impact that the money makes on each family.

It amazes me, though, because all of today's "red states" were blue 40 years ago because of the traditional democratic tax policy and extension of government. It wasn't until civil rights became an issue that realignment occurred and the southern states magically turned red. Many of the southern republicans adopt republican tax efforts because they stand on the same platform as social conservative reformation.

Considering the producers in this country are paying over 50% of their income in taxes, and the non producers are paying next to nothing in taxes - the unfairness is already here

 

[liberalogic]

Considering the producers in this country are paying over 50% of their income in taxes, and the non producers are paying next to nothing in taxes - the unfairness is already here

They're paying nothing because they have nothing. Do you want to tax them to death and put them on the streets? While that may not bother you since you seem to be under the pretext that all those who have no money are slackers, it affects society. All we would be doing is creating a breeding ground for more crime and less productivity.

Personally, I think that before we change anything in taxes, we need to figure out where the fuck all the money is going. I live in NJ and every time I cross a bridge or a tunnel into NYC they take $6 out of my pocket. Yet, I still drive over the same pot holes that have been there forever. As it is, government lacks one thing under any administration (rep or dem)-- efficiency. There are numerous factors that contribute to this: from irresponsible unions to extended beauracracies to political ambitions, etc. It just boggles my mind that the government (federal and state) has the audacity to tax anyone, rich or poor, and simply fuck us with our own money.

I believe that under the hypothetical dream that government is efficient, the rich should be taxed more (percentage-wise) if, and only if, necessary.