The debate over whether or not to extend the Bush/Cheney tax cuts for the richest among us is silly. The only defense for doing so is the idea that the more money the most wealthy among us can control, the more they will spend and somehow that will benefit the rest of us.
It's silly because all the statistics show that only once for a brief period did cuts in taxes for the wealthiest benefit the rest of us in any measurable economic way, and that was back in the 1960s when taxes for the rich went from the extremes of the '50s where once you made enough to last you and your family a few lifetimes you were taxed to the point of most of your money going to the government.
As that tax rate was reduced under both parties, loopholes (i.e. legal ways to get out of paying your fair share) grew until Reagan came along and reduced taxes on the wealthiest to the point of no matter how much they made most of their money would not go to the government, and allowed even more loopholes so that even that amount could be reduced to almost nothing, while taxes on the rest of us expanded and did not offer the kinds of loopholes the rich got so that from Reagan onward the gap between the rich and the rest of us grew until under Bush/Cheney it reached proportions that made that gap greater than it had ever been since the Great Depression, before which we found ourselves in the exact same position vis-a-vis taxes and the gap between the rich and everyone else as we did under Bush/Cheney.
If I had dictatorial powers I would make the taxation system fairer by making it simpler—no loopholes, no exceptions—and restore the graduated aspect of income taxes to its and the country's original idea of fairness, i.e. the richest pay a lot more than the non-richest. And use as justification the fact that when taxes were more fairly distributed in terms of percentage of income, this country was at its most prosperous and working people could afford to own homes and send their kids to colleges on one income!
I only paid at that highest level one year in my life and because I didn't own a home, was single at the time and my two older children were grown and my youngest not born yet, the government took what felt like a huge bite out of the money I made that year. I felt pretty bad about it after wealthy Hollywood friends scolded me for not coming to them because their accountants would have found ways for me not to pay that much or not to pay any at all.
But then I prayed and meditated on it and realized that I had been using the interstate highway system to drive around and across the country for decades by that time, I had enjoyed the benefits of our military (shelter and food and healthcare and some education etc.—totally "socialist" by the right's terms—while serving in it for over four years, and keeping our country safe, etc. the rest of the time) all my life, my parents enjoyed the benefits of Social Security which before FDR in the first years of the Great Depression under Republicans they had lost their business, home, and most of their possessions etc.), and so much more.
After that I felt good that I had paid my fair share for all that and more. It's obvious that the wealthy, who enjoy even more of the benefits of this country while often hiding their wealth in overseas accounts and companies or shipping jobs overseas or doing other things with it that does not benefit the rest of us at all (as the "dribble down" economic theories have proven to always grow the wealth of the richest and either stagnate or reverse the money the rest of us can use to live on etc.) should be taxed at a fairer rate, including the wealth they make from investments (the non-or-minimal-taxation of which is the reason Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary as he has pointed out).
And just one last point, the taxes not paid by the wealthiest under the temporary tax cuts for the richest among us put in by Bush/Cheney not only did not create more wealth for any of us below the most wealthy, but add up to just about the exact amount of money spent on the Iraqi war, an amount that not only turned the surplus under Clinton/Gore into the deficit under Bush/Cheney, but contributed greatly to the economic mess Bush/Cheney got us into and Obama/Biden are now getting us out of.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
If one is comfortable with unemployment of near 10% it is certainly silly to consider lessening the expenses of business so that they expand and hire.
Yes, Jim, those same angelic businesses that pay top executives obscene sums, even when the businesses are failing because of their corruptness, sums that could literally save schools and feed, shelter and provide for many families who have lost their jobs due to that very corporate greed and corruption.
Go Robert,
Punish those stinkin capitalist pigs. Let's get more people on the public dole and kill private enterprise.
Yeah, you're right Jim, all those poor people don't really count or even exist, they're just numbers on a page. It's really ok for them to suffer and for others to grossly profit at their expense, that's what untaxed, unregulated private enterprise is all about. Your delusional holy-of-holies.
NEVER HEARD OF Income Averaging?
sounds like you 'screwed' yourself:
http://www.ronideutch.com/articles/72
From today's NY Times: "The Congressional Budget Office found that extending the Bush tax cuts would be the least effective way to reduce unemployment."
Robert,
Socialists, Obama/Pelosi/Reid believe that the purpose of government is to provide equal outcomes. The Founders, Tea Party Folks and some Republicans believe that the best government is one that governs least and provides equal opportunity. Obama seems to have shifted the government too far to the left of the electorate. November 2nd will tell the tale.
PS As to the CBO and the best way to boost employment, I will stick with history and Harding/Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and George W.
Robert, Here is a factoid from AP today on the effectiveness of Obamanomics on poverty. Of course all liberals understand that it is Bush's fault and Obama is innocent of malpractice.
By HOPE YEN and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers Hope Yen And Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writers –
Sat Sep 11, 2:13 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.
President Obama inherited/stepped into an avalanche which the ignorant and bitter wrongly blame him for. From the same article you cite:
"The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama's economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.
Democrats almost certainly will argue that they shouldn't be blamed. They're likely to counter that the economic woes — and the poverty increase — began under President George W. Bush with the near-collapse of the financial industry in late 2008.
Although that's true,"
Michael cited a number of improvements that have actually occured and/or are happening under Obama in a recent post which you chose not to acknowledge, a choice which essentially saps any credibility from your posturing, Jim.
Robert,
Help, I feel so sapped!
If you cannot acknowledge, accept or address verified information that does not accord with your viewpoint, it weakens the power and credibility of what you say. If you want what you say to be taken seriously, then you need to credibly refute the opposing evidence. Law and Order 101.
Robert,
I got-a-be me. I dislike big government socialism in Democrats or in RINOS. And Robert, you know no conservative Tea Party person would ever have any credablility with you or most on this blog. The good news is that we seem to have some credability with the electorate. We shall see. I still have dreams of a veto proof congress. No one is predicting that, but I think it could be possible in a seismic shift year.
"Obama’s approval rating, for months a consistent (not imploding) 45-ish percent, still makes him arguably America’s most popular national politician. The polls also continue to show that, while both political parties are despised, Democrats are slightly less despised than Republicans. In The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, for instance, 36 percent of those surveyed rate the Democrats positively, compared with the G.O.P.’s 30 percent. It’s only when the November horse-race matchup is limited to “likely voters” that the tidal wave rolls in, giving the Republicans a roughly 10-point lead." —from Frank Rich's column in today's NY Times
Post a Comment