The top 1 percent of Americans, whose income is above $348,000, now receives the largest chunk of the national income since the Great Depression, the New York Times reported. Their average incomes increased by 14 percent in 2005, while the incomes of the bottom 90 percent of Americans dipped an average of 0.6 percent.
“If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” said economist Emmanuel Saez. “It can have important political consequences.” Next year’s election could be a good test.
Posted by Ross Stewart
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Phantom on Open thread 11/8
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/8
- sursum on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Death penalty review promised
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
136 Comments
But are you giving a balanced view? Have you done any research, or just quoting the left’s talking points?
Here is a summary of IRS income tax filings for 2005 (I cannot find 2006 data yet):http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05inplim.pdf
In this document, look at total income tax paid by those with an adjusted gross income $200,000/yr (highest group). [There will be extra credit for analyzing the groups in between.]
For those in the highest group (>$200,000/yr adjusted gross income), this group paid 50.8% of the total tax, but only represented 3.9% of all that filed taxes.
For those in the lowest group (<$15,000/yr adjusted gross income), this group paid 0.35% of the total tax, and represented 11.3% of all that filed taxes.
Why not introduce a “tax” system into high schools and grade schools? The hard working students getting 100% on a test, should likely give 20% points (maybe more) to those that don’t do much and only get 40 of 50%. Wouldn’t that be fair?
Why can’t the Eagle do balanced research, and present a balanced picture, instead of promoting the left’s agenda of class warfare?
Why don’t the Wichita Eagle and McClatchey voluntarily pay a higher tax on your earnings so those in the lower income levels can pay less?
I wonder if anyone who works for the New York Times makes more than $348,000?
How about the Publisher of the New York Times? What about the investors of the New York Times? Are any of the investors making more than $348,000?
Brenda C. Barnes is on the Board of Directors for the New York Times. She is also a director on the board of Staples, Inc. Do you think Brenda C. Barnes makes more than $348,000?
Since a small minority holds the majority of the wealth it’s expected that they’d pay the majority of the taxes. The fact that they paid so little only supports the editorial position. Economies fail when more wealth is held in the hands of a few because there are fewer transactions. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. However conservatives have never been concerned with a healthy economy because they believe in the trickle down theory of economics where the rich will just get so sick of being rich they’ll vomit money down to everyone else. They also believe Iraq is a great tourist spot. They aren’t exactly in touch with reality.
Awww Meadowlark, I’m so incredibly sad that the ultra rich pay the most tax. Boo hoo. Maybe if they’d pay their employees more they’d have less to tax. PLEASE let me switch places with them so they can pay less tax.
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Occidental Petroleum Corp.’s (NYSE:OXY – news) chairman and chief executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year, the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts in U.S. corporate history.
political mom you’ll never covince KS Meadowlark no matter what you say. The rich will never be happy until they pay no taxes. Every idiot knows the rich pay the most income taxes because they make the most. The bottom line is that after the rich get done paying taxes they are still rich so it’s so hard for me to feel bad for them.
That’s pretty much it: name ONE PERSON who would trade places with a minimum-wage earner because of the tax benefits. Sheesh. Monumental insensitivity bordering on criminal–is this the mentality that results in in Enron and Tyco?
Penny-wise, pound-foolish for sure. KS Meadowlark, shame on you. Shame on all of us for voting in people who think the same way.
Once again, don’t confuse me with the facts. We want a fair tax system, so long as fair means the rich pay all the taxes. Of course it’s easier to blame someone else for not making that kind of money than it is to get the education and make the sacrifices to put yourself in a position to be so well compensated. The sense of entitlement and victimization displayed by so many here should be an embarrasment to all.
Let me get this straight. The NYTimes writes an article about the ‘wage gap’. It cites three left-wing sources and the Treasury Secretary. Not exactly a balanced report. Don’t they teach critical thinking at journalism school?
Oh bullshit MTMS. I hear people talk all the time about the taxes the lower middle don’t pay. Which is utterly crap. The more you make, the more you pay, which is how it SHOULD be.
The upper class get a ton of tax breaks, plus they have all the credit too. Poor people pay more for nearly everything from insurance to car loans.
There is no entitlement, just that we’d like to earn more for our hard work than the measly crumbs thrown down from above is all. They need us lowly workers too afterall.
So I’m sick of hearing about the poor rich. They could choose to put more of that tax burden on the employees, but they choose not to by paying them less and pocketing more for themselves.
Meadowlark, Republican, and Proudman: You present a classic example of “shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message”.
Our tax system IS based on fairness. The unfair parts are the sections that have been tinkered with for special groups. Now there are complaints because the rich pay a higher percentage. Does anyone remember when the tax table was set up so the wealthiest 1% paid more than 70% of their income in taxes? Hint: It was before the Reagan administration. Our system is set up so those who make the least have the highest percentage left to pay for life’s needs. Those who make the most, far more than is necessary to provide their needs, will pay a higher percentage. They still have money left over for some of the nice things in life. Somewhere between the poor and the rich are the “middle class”, who pay their share and have enough left over to help their children with education and live in a decent house. That is what makes this country great. A person doesn’t have to be rich to be comfortable.
The problem with shifting the taxes to a flat base and funding to the private sector is that it forces many people from the middle class into poverty. Then social problems grow, while the great Gatzby rich ignore the problem. We have a name for nations like that: We call them “Third World Countries”.
Meanwhile, elderly veteran serves 71 days in jail for being accused of stealing two hot dogs from a Wichita Quick trip. Reminds my of the stories I used to hear about people going to jail for stealing a loaf of bread during the depression. Looks like the return of the Great Republican Society is upon us, again.
The rich should pay more taxes, it’s the middle income and lower income people that protect their interest, whether it be fighting wars for their profiteering, or policing the streets.As for any CEO being worth 1000 times more than his employee, ridiculous. Their education level is no greater than millions of other Americans, and neither is their intelligence.
Let us begin with a common misconception: Income and wealth are not the same thing! The federal government really doesnt tax wealth. The federal government, through the income tax, and payroll tax, only taxes people who earn an income. The income tax is actually a barrier to more people becomming rich!
It is relatively simple, through legal means, to reduce the reportable income of most “wealthy” people. Municipal bonds, annuities and other methods that the limo left uses as frequently as my “capitalist tool” friends, help to lower income subject to tax. Therefore, I am not sure what some of these “studies” actually prove.
The figures from 2001 haven’t changed much, but this debate has been around since the Biblical Prodigal Son. That Bible verse is as much a warning against envy as it is a model of forgiveness.
Basically: “What is it to you what I give to your brother?” is a timeless question.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
Tough if you don’t like a Limbaugh post on this Blog. If the Eagle would do more to balance itself, it might not require such a post to balance them out!
Anyway, tearing down the rich does absolutely nothing for the poor.
Enron was a VERY liberal company that supported carbon taxes!
The capitalistic system is great because it motivates people to do something with their lives. The country is a better place, overall, because people do have that motivation. I don’t really mind it that we have the ultra-rich because a lot of them do give back to society. What I do mind is that the people at the lower end of the income pool tend to not have a seat at the table and they are constantly in danger of becoming even more marginalized. The debate tends to focus on the tax system, with the left making a case that the ultra-rich should have to pay more and then the ultra-rich, in my view, grow understandably defensive. This is a human response. I mean, I don’t like it when people spend my money for me, so why should they?
I wonder if there isn’t some other way to frame the debate. The ultra-rich are obviously doing fine, so the question should focus on what we can do to ignite a recovery from the lower classes.
The growing problem in education might be a place to start. Roy Wenzl’s article last week made the case that public schools require mentors to give these kids a sense of involvement in their community. If you get these kids through school and get them trained, your chances of having more productive citizens are much improved. The whole community benefits economically. I can almost hear the counter argument, though, before I even finish typing: “Someone else’s kid is not my problem. That’s the parent’s job.” In reality, unfortunately, some of these kids do not experience anything like stability at home, so they have to get it someplace else. An accelerated mentoring system might help in this area.
As I was writing and drinking my coffee, I remembered this book I have in my collection, entitled, “Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy,” by Donald Kagan. It’s not my place to be recommending books for the public school curriculum, but I wish everyone in America had read that book.
In the Introduction, Kagan tells us, “Two millenia after the Athenians’ defeat we still marvel at what they achieved. But the visible remains, impressive as they are, do not constitute their most important legacy. Pericles confronted the problem that faces any free and democratic society: How can the citizens be persuaded to make the sacrifices necessary for its success? Tyrants and dictators can rely on mercenaries and compulsion to defend their states. Rare states like Sparta–a closed authoritarian society–could inculcate in their people a willingness to renounce their private lives almost entirely. But democracies cannot use such devices. Instead, democratic leadership involves a freer kind of public education. Pericles sought to teach the Athenians that their own interests were inextricably tied together with those of their community, that they could not be secure and prosper unless their state was secure and prosperous, that the ordinary man could achieve greatness only through the greatness of his society. All that he did and all that he sought for Athens was part of that education.”
Kagan follows that paragraph with a stellar closing statement a page or two later: “In their rational and secular approach, in their commitment to political freedom and individual autonomy in a constitutional, republican and democratic public life, the Athenians of Pericles’ day are closer to the values of our era than any culture that has appeared since antiquity. That is why Periclean Athens has such a powerful meaning for us. But if there is much to learn from the similarities, there is at least as much to learn from the differences between the Athenians and ourselves. Although the Athenians valued wealth and material goods as we do, they regarded economic life and status as less noble and important than distinction in public service. Although they were among the first to recognize the dignity of the individual, they could not imagine the fulfillment of their spiritual needs apart from an involvement in the life of a well-ordered community. To understand the achievements of Pericles and his city we need to be aware of these significant differences, and we must study them with humility. For in spite of their antiquity, the Athenians may have believed things we have either forgotten or never known; and we must keep open the possibility that in some respects, at least, they were wiser than we.”
I don’t think even the staunchest conservative has a problem with this ultra rich class paying more than their fair share of the burden. $400 million is ridiculous. I imagine there are a number of countries that this is in excess of the GNP.My problem is where many of the left in Congress (that ultra rich class) want to define “rich”.Is it $100,000? Where in Wichita you are making a very nice living. Or Southern California, where one can’t get ahead at that HH income?Cost of living has to come into play in setting tax burdens.
There should be a flat tax, everyone pay the same percentage, no matter how much or how little they make…that’s only fair. Why should those who stay in school, graduate from college, work hard, delay gratification to make something of themselves, to buy a home, and earn a decent living, be penalized for doing so? In this country, if you choose not to be educated and have no desire to better yourself, if you live hand to mouth and have children too young with no real plan to support them, then you don’t have to take much responsibility, the government provides free health care, food, etc. just for the price of making bad choices. For too long, the government has enabled and rewarded people for being irresponsible, and all the good it’s done is to make more people less self sufficiant and more dependant on others to take care of them. When we do for someone what they need to do for themselves, we only encourage their dependance and helplessness. The dependant population is getting bigger than the population that supports them, it can’t last forever, folks.Maybe I’m a bit off track here, but I’m sick of all the whinning by those who make bad choices or those who are lazy or scared to work hard always blaming the “rich” for the misfortune only they can control.We live in a country where there is all sorts of opportunity to make a good life, but it takes work, and for many, that’s the problem.
political mom
You seem somewhat “teachable” at times. Not that you change your mind very often, but you at least seem to have some curiosity about how we justify our positions.
I am not “crying” about the “rich” (those in top 50% of income, based on INCOME NOT WEALTH) Anyway, the top 50% in income pay over 96% of income taxes!
No, that is NOT a bad thing. In fact, tax rate cuts tend to increase the actual taxes paid by the “rich” when wealth is measured by income.
Conversely, tax rate increases tend to REDUCE the actual taxes and the percentages of taxes paid by the “wealthy” based on income.
Again, the statistical problems with all of these studies is alarming. Wealth vs income is only one of the problems. The other problem is that the left insists that social security and medicare taxes, payroll taxes, be added into the mix.
Ok, if you do that, then some allowance should be made for the “earned income credit” which basically refunds the payroll tax to millions of “poor” people.
Also, the “rich,” based on income, pay BACK a large chunk of their social security benefits in the form of additional income taxes on that SS benefit.
So the “poor” don’t all have to pay into Social Security, (they get a refund) and the “rich” see 85% of their SS benefit treated as taxable income.
Anyway, any statistical study of wealth or income will be flawed. I admit that up front.
What can NOT be denied, however, is that this is a PSYCHOLOGICAL issue, not an issue of simple MATH.
Sorry, it IS Easter after all. How about another Biblical reference?Joseph advised Pharoh that tough times were comming.It was NOT Joseph’s advice to raise taxes in advance of the famine.Instead, Joseph advised the Pharoh to CUT taxes.”Seven Fat Years” followed, in which the people and the government, prospered greatly and were able to save up for the future hard times!—–pmomAgain, forgive my preaching but both references fit, in my opinion.
The reason it is morally acceptable to allow “gaps” in wealth and income is this:
“Closing” those “gaps” does nothing for the poor.
In fact, since we calculate wealth based on income and not based on assetts, higher tax rates will make ME rich, along with many attorneys, accountants, stock brokers and inaurance agents.
If you target reportable, taxable income, taxable income will shrink. It is part of my JOB to legally hide income. Attorneys, accountants, stock brokers and insurance agents get taken to court, frequently, for failing to hide income from the IRS.
The exclusion allowance on annuity payouts, the tax deferral of most insurance products, the depreciation of realestate, the write off of working interests in oil wells, the tax free status of municipal bond interest — All of these concepts were written by Democrats, not Republicans. Most of IRS law was written under Democrat control of Congress. All Repubicans have ever done to the tax code is tinker around the edges, changing rates but rarely changing terms and definitions.
No, I am not pointing fingers, I am just explaining to you that our tax code was written by and for special interest groups. During the brief period of Republican control, not much changed, just the rates!
The higher the tax rate, the more corrupt Washington becomes, because increasing tax rates increases the stakes in the game.
Higher tax rates empower politicians to grant bigger and better favors, better tax breaks.
Higher tax rates also push real “wealth” underground.
Artwork does not generate a 1099.
Gold does not generate a 1099.
When you try to force someone who is making $348,000 to pay more taxes on that income, that person will find a way to reduce reportable income without reducing his or her total wealth.
It is very easy to do.
The best way to make sure the “rich” pay their fair share is to make sure taxes are truly fair.
I think it is much more important – when discussing a fair taxation system – to discuss how many actual dollars are going to be paid by the uber rich vs the poor and middle class under any plan labeled as flat tax vs. the progressive tax structure we supposedly have now. It is mythology to pretend that the rich and corporations right now ACTUALLY pay a fair share in taxes as there are too many loopholes and tax credits that sooo water down the tax “bottom line”. “Fairness” cannot be claimed with a straight face to exist now.
If we were to trade the current system for a flat rate that DID AWAY WITH all of the credits and guaranteed a minimum “bottom line” liability that everyone had to pay and could not avoid, then perhaps it would be a worthwhile change.
What I fear though is that the middle class would get a Trojan Horse with any legislation of this nature. If passing a flat tax means that the net ACTUAL DOLLARS paid would increase for the middle class, then it ain’t worth talking about. If we are going to seriously discuss a “flat rate” for the rich, it needs to result in an actual INCREASE in the actual dollars flowing into the federal treasury by the rich.
“Meanwhile, elderly veteran serves 71 days in jail for being accused of stealing two hot dogs from a Wichita Quick trip. Reminds my of the stories I used to hear about people going to jail for stealing a loaf of bread during the depression. Looks like the return of the Great Republican Society is upon us, again.”Posted by: steve | April 08, 2007 at 09:24 AM
I may have to call you on this one Steve. I feel sorry for the old fellow, but it seems he made his bed earlier in his life when he struck and killed a child while driving drunk.
I’m not getting the full story here I suspect. And before you start, yes I read the Eagle version.
First, he may be getting a meager amount from Social Security, but I don’t understand why, unless he didn’t work after he got out of the Army. Only reason for someone to get $474.00 a month with social security is he didn’t work much.
Secondly, he’s probably qualified for several hundred dollars a month in the way of the Kansas food assistance program (Vision Card.)
Thirdly, he’s probably qualified for housing assistance from the State and the Old Soldiers home from the army. I’m unsure how a felony works with the latter.
Fourth, he can get food assistance from many of the food warehouses.
Fifth, perhaps the old man is a bit creepier than what the Eagle portrays him as. Maybe he is an alcoholic still and just hasn’t learned that drinking caused all his problems. Being 74 though, it doesn’t seem to be affecting him though that much.
You may think I’m harsh, but I’ve seen this when I was in the military. Alcoholics who, through their own belligerent acts threw back in the face of anyone who give them health care, food, quarters, counseling and etc in the Military. Then go out into the civilian word and become hardcore – do-nothing-alcoholic, rationalizing their behavior with each drink they take.
He has children, why aren’t they taking care of him? Perhaps he abused them or scarred their feelings toward him?
Yes, there are too many untold facts in this adventure. I would want to know more before laying a guilt trip on anyone.
Kelly
You miss the point.
Income is voluntary. The rich don’t need income. Punish income and income will disappear.Punish income and tax revenue will disappear.
One Ford CEO made $28 million for four months work. He made that much despite his company losing $12.7 billion. The company also fired 30,000 workers because of the loss. The rich morons figured that people will still want to buy trucks that get 10mpg while gas prices go above $3 a gallon and nobody would want fuel efficient cars.
It’s the conservative’s dream world that people who work hard and do well make a lot of money. No, you just get these guys who write their own paychecks regardless of how well their performance is. When rich people screw up it’s the working people who suffer.
Eat the rich. Kill them and take their stuff.
There. That wasn’t so hard, now was it?
Oh, Happy Easter, by the way.
I am most certainly NOT talking about punishing income-producing incentive. I’m just not willing to join the Trojan Horse panacea about a flat-tax unless we know EXACTLY what it will mean to actual tax dollars going to the federal treasury.
Any discussion of taxes has to start with an understanding of our National Debt and entitlement obligations. The Debt currently stands at $8.9 trillion and we are forecasted to experience deficit spending until at least 2012, by even the most optomistic (read Bush) projections.
Current entitlement obligations total $39 trillion. Those entitlements would include SS. There is no Social Security lockbox – all of the money was been applied to the budget.
Even with the Bush Administrations rosy projections, the National Debt will increase by a minimum of $1.5 trillion over the next five years. Assuming that the Federal budget is actually balanced by 2012, which is unlikely, when will the debt be paid off?
In the Eighties, the Reagan mantra was that tax cuts would cause revenues to grow and the deficit would be eliminated. That did not happen under Reagan or Bush I. For a short period in the late Nineties, we had a surplus budget, but that quickly vanished under Bush II.
We have been living with deficit spending for thirty plus years. This is a situation that cannot continue. It is time that we as a nation, left and right, address the 800 pound gorrila in the room instead of pretending that it will go away if we just ignore it long enough.
We owe it to our children’s children’s children to do something now before America becomes a wholly owned property of Japan and China.
I’m always amused by the assertion that EVERYONE who isn’t rich is uneducated and taking handouts. I received an associate’s degree in Business Administration, and all i can get is jobs that pay $10/hr, which after taxes, health insurance, etc., comes out to about $1300/month. I don’t get medicaid, food stamps, srs childcare..it all comes out of my pocket. I have a child born with healt problems, so my spouse stays home with him. So please, Mary Caruso, tell me between all that, how in the heck am I supposed to go back to school w/o bankrupting my family and them ending up on the street?? i don’t have fancy cars, i i have 4 people crammed into a 950 square foot home, i wear my clothes until the fall apart, cut my own hair, cut every corner I can, and still have hard time making ends meet. Not everyone who struggles, and begrudges poeple making more money than any one person needs, and then crying that people are UNFAIR, is trying to get stuff for free.
Thanks for the post Elizabeth M. It will set those who make statements of platitude and generality realize that life isn’t that simple.
BTW, thanks for being a good mom. :)
The richest Americans are mostly Democrats.
Go Figure!
“The richest Americans are mostly Democrats.”
Where did that come from?
It’s the truth!
Just look at the members of Congress!
For example: Did you know that Nancy Pelosi is the richest Congressperson in the House?
The Hollywood Left, the leftist Billionaires like Soros, Sam Nell, Haim Saban, David Geffen and it goes on and on.
You think Democrats in power are all average folks making an average earning? Hell no! They’re rich and on top.
I am going to come out as looking extremely harsh with this comment, but I believe Elizabeth’s post illustrates the point between the have and have nots.But what beside a child with health problems (we deal with some as well and you have my prayers), which of your predictaments are not by your own decisions?
The extent to which the parties have flipped positions on the little-guy/rich-guy divide is illustrated by research from the Ipsos-Reid polling firm. Comparing counties that voted strongly for Bush to those that voted strongly for Gore in the 2000 election, the study shows that in pro-Bush counties only 7 percent of voters earned at least $100,000, while 38 percent had household incomes below $30,000.
In the pro-Gore counties, fully 14 percent pulled in $100,000 or more, while 29 percent earned less than $30,000.
So in this poll it shows that Gore pulled in more rich voters than Republicans.
No, Joe, I know that a bunch of rich folks are Democrats, but I doubt that there is a huge disparity between rich Dems or Republicans.
I’ll have to do some research on Pelosi’s wealth. I know that she is very well off, but I would think that Kerry with his wife’s wealth is probably better off.
It’s too bad that Teresa Heinz-Kerry didn’t have enough money to hire someone to keep John’s foot out of his mouth.
I thought Teresa hoof in mouth disease was more of a liability to the campaign than JFK’s himself
which of your predictaments are not by your own decisions?>>
I was not asking for sympathy or pity…i was merely illustrating a point. I’ve made bad decisions, i’d be the first to admit it. I was a stupid kid 10 years ago, thought that i didn’t need a degree, or could go back whenever i wanted to get it. I got pregnant unexpectedly 6 years ago, and thought i was doing the right thing by keeping it and going to work full time, and quitting school. I didn’t have another kid for 5 years after that, and we were actually doing ok. But when my son was born sick, we ended up with over $70,000 in medical expenses, after insurance we still owe $13,000. I work a second job JUST to pay those bills, which is also why my husband stays home with the kids, to try and save us money on childcare. I took steps after my second child to ensure i would have no more children i really couldn’t pay for. i have NEVER taken handouts, charity, etc. My life as such is what I made of it, and I take full responsibility for it.
What my point was, is that so many people have the view that people like me have dozens of kids, been married and divorced, refuse to work, etc…it couldn’t be farther from the truth. I would do anything to make sure my children were provided for, and I make no apologies for that. I don’t expect people such as Mary and Mr.Kia to feel sorry for me, or to even understand. With their lot, i’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t, so where to go from there?
The top four Senators are Dems, headed by Herb Kohl or Wisconsin and then Kerry.
Pelosi is only the nineth richest Congresscritter.
The table is slightly skewed, since it is pre-2006 election.
http://swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1004361
Let’s just say that John Kerry should not try to tell jokes in public.
In fact, John should not be allowed in public at all.
I think they release the list, every year on May 15th or somewhere around there.
With many of the Republicans gone, like Chafee and First and other Republican Congresspeople, I suspect the Democrat list to be even larger.
There are plenty of list out there. But one list, had Nancy Pelosi as the richist in the House. This is excluding the Senate. But you can play with the numbers as well.
Either annual income, net worth, what they personally make comparied to jointly with a spouse and etc.
Elizabeth you’ve obviously made some very good choices and decisions as well. I just don’t want you to feel like you are stuck with your career for the most part. I believe you have a lot of options to improve your situation.
SteveI did not read the morning paper before I read your “hotdog” post.
As soon as I read your post, and the first couple responses, I said to myself, “Oh no, I hope they arent talking about Mr. Wimberly”
Well, now my hunch is proven correct.
My parents went to school with Mr. Wimberly. His daughter went to East High, with me.
More than 20 years ago, Mr. Wimberly was stopped by Safeway security for walking out of the store with Swisher Sweets cigars in his pocket. Security saw him take the cigars off the shelf and stick them in his pocket.
He swore he simply forgot, and showed us all that he had the money to pay for his cigars.
I went to bat for him, as a long-time Safeway employee. Store security let him off the hook, at my request.
Less than 10 days later: Mr. Wimberly hit and drug a young girl, on a tricycle I think, under his car for over one block, on South Hillside, before stopping.
My knowledge of the accident is second hand and old, so forgive me if my details aren’t perfect.
However, I have always wondered if, had Mr. Wimberly been charged at the time, his life might have changed?
I have always wondered if MY enabeling behavior helped to kill that little girl.
After all, this latest shoplifting charge kept Mr. Wimberly off the road for several days, did it not?
What if charging Mr. Wimberly, 20 years ago, had led him into rehab? What if other charges against him were pending, and the Safeway arrest would have kept him out of circulation?
I have forgiven myself. I doubt than anything I did would of mattered, at that time.
Those involved in Mr. Wimberly’s latest arrest need to know this particular part of his history.
That is why I bring it up now.
Gentlemen,
All of this sweetness and light about how the Republicans are the party of the poor is a bit much for a reasonable man to take, even when he’s watching golf and trying to be pleasant on Easter Sunday. I think it’s fair to say that most of the national politicians from both parties come from at least some wealth. The campaigning system feeds into that phenomenon and enhances my previous point that the lower income people in this country do not know the power players and they do not have a seat at the table. Meanwhile, the lobbyists are bellied up to the bar on a daily basis, getting fat on mozzarella sticks and cocktail sauce. As I said earlier, I don’t have an objection to people getting rich, but the country will be a lot stronger as a whole if we find a way to ignite a recovery from the lower classes. It’s also true that citizens with college degrees hit bad patches from time to time, through no fault of their own, in this shifting world economy. Getting the degree or the proper training is not a guarantee of anything, but at least it puts you in a position to get a job if a job opens up. At any rate, I fail to see how Tom Delay and his gang did all that much to help anyone other than the chaps up the street at the lobbying firms, and one or two of those boyos are now in the jar.
Who the Hell said that we have to be “fair” to the rich?? The rich SHOULD pay much higher tax rates than regular people because the rich BENEFIT more and use our system of Democracy and law more to their advantage therefore they benefit more by being Americans. They also benefit by having a well educated, healthy and fed population that insures domestic tranquility which enable them to make their money. If I had my way I would SCRAP the current tax system and replace it with a REAL progressive system where the first $30,000 of every person’s income would not be taxed at all but these people making $20 million a year would be taxed at 70%.
Taxes are only part of the reason the rich are robbing the rest of us. The other part of the reason is because the republicans have largely destroyed organized labour in this country. Used to be about 35% or more of the nation was unionized and I think it is now less than 10%. It is a fact that union members get a bigger piece of the pie than non union members. We need more unions.
Let me put it this way- there is NOBODY- not anybody in this country that is worth $100 million a year. No CEO, no ballplayer! In fact, I would say nobody is worth $10 million a year either. Now of somebody comes up with a cure for cancer or MD, then maybe that person would be worth that kind of money.
You know what is even more amazing- the lady that cut my hair a few weeks ago told me they only get $8 an hour! And they had to go to school for 2000 hours, take an exam and get a license from tha state!
My message to the Rich People –I have always thought that the Rich people were responsible people; at lease they should be responsible.If you are Rich, you do have the responsibilities of leadership in society to lead the masses by examples.It is how you accumulated your riches in the first place, all from the resources of others and not one from any singularities.
Hey Kev, it not only used to be that way , but it used to be 90%. And you would love the Brit based one even better. They had a rate of 105%. Which means that you not only owe them EVERYTHING you made, but a 5% penalty FORBEING EVIL and MAKING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Now that is socialism at work in great order.
But even with those high rates we got more money when the rates were cut. Cause the people with money simply put it into tax free investments when rates are high etc.
Some retiree friends I know recently took their 2 million retirement funds and put it all into tax free municipal bonds , it pays low such as 3.5%, but its all tax free. So 2 mill times 3.5 = 70 ,000 per year tax free….
If you start punishing people they will simply stop doing things. They will stop investing or hide it in other investments here or around the world where the money will be welcome. Remember, money is highly fungible.
Kev and TRT
My point remains: The “rich” dont need income.Tax them at 70%, or some other ridiculous figure, and they will find another way to invest theri money.The truly rich make money off of money, not personal labor.”It takes money to make money” as they say.Any increase in tax rates will simply cause a reclassification or reallocation of assetts.People will stop investing in productive activity that creates jobs.People will begin looking for more tax shelters.The current tax rates are about right, in my opinion.If you would like to enrich the tax shelter salesmen like myself, by all means, increase tax rates!
I wouldn’t begrudge an enterpaneur his lavish salaries, if his wealth was a direct result of his risk taking and innovation. But for corporate CEO’s who have climbed the ladder through friends, family and priveledge to make these astronomical sums, having never had an original idea or putting everything on the line to make the prospect work, I think is ludicrous, ridiculous and unfair to the other hard working slobs that make and produce the corporate products! And, it doesn’t even matter if the corporation is experiencing losses due to poor planning at the upper levels, they’ll just layoff and make the other peons work that much harder.
Here’s another proverb, to whom much is given, much is expected.
………….. and just out of curiousity, how do you folks plan on paying down the National Debt and paying our entitlement obligations?
How many rich people worked their butts off to get somewhere? Does it makes sense to say that people should get educated and work hard so that they can be successful only for the government to take most of their money from them?
Most people with money today worked their butts off sot that they could have an easier life and now you want to punish them? That is just plain selfish and stupid.
How many poor people supply jobs? How many poor people tax the risk to own a business? Yes I said risk because it is tough to be in business for your self. You work long hours and are responsible for your employees and if the business fails so do your employees and your own family. You lose everything you own because you put everything into it.
I for one am thankful that people are out there willing to take a chance to own a business so that I can have a job to feed and take care of my family.
For all of you out there married and with children you may want to take a look at your tax return this year and thank a republican. They got rid of the marriage penalty and gave a bigger tax break for your children.
The Democrat congress just voted to repeal both of those tax breaks.
Most of us have worked hard to be successful and have saved money. We have made sacrifices along the way so that we could make things better for our families and for our retirement years. Why do you think we owe you anything?
No discussion of income tax is complete without a plug for The Fair Tax, http://www.fairtax.org . It’s a consumption tax imposed as a national retail sales tax. It ends the IRS, ends your ‘voluntary’ reporting of financial moves, and REMOVES the tax burden from those living beneath the poverty line. It’s the best proposal out there.
As to the comments about a flat tax, what we have today started as a flat tax. It was also designed to only tax the very wealthy. However, once given the power our friends in Washington screwed all of us.
Elizabeth, I wasn’t reffering to you so much as the ones who feel like the government owes them a living because they’re “poor”. I know one “man” who has 8 illegitimate kids by 5 different women, all depending on the system to take care of them, he has never paid child support and last year he had a stroke due to his chronic cocaine use, so now he’s disabled, so the taxpayor will get to support him for the rest of what’s left of his life. I know I’m jaded at times, but in my line of work I see abuse of taxpayor money all the time, drug and alcohol abuse, laziness, bad life choices, and major irresponsibility. I get pretty sick of it, especially this time of year when my husband and I pay our dues to Uncle Sam.You said you had $13,000 in medical bills after insurance paid their share…that’s just the price of a cheap car. Would it turn your life upside down because you bought a Kia?I’ve been there, had one child we had to pay cash for and I’ve had cancer treatment for 7 yrs now. Life ain’t cheap, no one ever said it would be. If you feel like you can’t make a living with a degree in business, become a nurse. I did that with 3 kids at home and working at the same time…Via Christi is opening a new temp pool to staff it’s hospitals when a position comes open, they’re starting those nurses at $48 an hour. There are so many opportunties in this country to make money if you choose the right career. Hell, housekeepers even make $20 an hour.
“The Democrat congress just voted to repeal both of those tax breaks.”
When? Provide a link. Back up your claim.
I think we should tax the hell out of cigarettes, alcohol, legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it, and bring on the casinos! What about the lottery? How much of that revenue goes to the state? No one can bitch about those taxes, they’re strictly voluntary.Drop the property taxes and increase the sin taxes.
They already tax the hell out of cigarettes, alcohol, etc, Mary. To me the solution is a phased in National Sales Tax on items other than groceries and medicines.
Of course, I am a sinner, so I do not like the thought of a tax on sin……..
Maybe they should start taxing churches…………
“Hell, housekeepers even make $20 an hour.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm………..
$40,000 per year as a housekeeper? Man, I missed THAT boat. Where do I sign up??????
Just did a bit of research and I could not find anything on Democrats repealing the revocation of the marriage tax penalty or voting to decrease the dependant deduction.
Perhaps someone was just making up stuff?
Econ101,
You may have misunderstood me. I am not advocating a tougher tax on the ultra-rich. My point is that the lower income group is not sufficiently represented, and that it would be to the benefit of our city and the country as a whole if education and training were in place for as many people as possible. Wenzl’s article on education last week pointed out that an accelerated mentoring system might help the younger crowd turn the corner to adulthood in a more productive manner and leave the city with a trained work force. A trained work force should lead to more citizens making competitive salaries. It is in the best interest of the capitalists to put our education system in order. You and a few others have been involved in a discussion about the tax system, but if you read what I wrote, you will see that I took a different path. Hell, I even spewed a little Periclean wisdom at the masses!
In my last post, I did question the validity of the assertion that Republicans are the new party of the working poor, so perhaps you concluded that I was fighting the class warfare battle from that angle.
In truth, you guys wore me out last week in the scuffle over voting restrictions. I don’t need anymore sass from Repubs until at least 2008. Go ahead. Get as rich as you like.
If I were running things there would no such thing as a “tax free investment” because ALL investment would be tax free. Only profit (income) would be taxed So if you invest a million that would be tax free but your capital gains and dividends would be taxed as income at your regular rate and your capital gains would only be taxed when you sold your investments. And ALL income would be taxed the same whether wages, investments, bonus money if I had my way.
“Meanwhile, elderly veteran serves 71 days in jail for being accused of stealing two hot dogs from a Wichita Quick trip.”
I find that hard to believe. Either the man is a habitual criminal with a prior or something else is involved here. Nobody gets jail for stealing a hot dog.
Of course low income whites vote for Republicans because most of them are stupid. You wrap yourself in a Bible and a flag and you can sell that bunch anything. That and the fact that the GOP is generally anti black and anti Mexican (although they never bother the employers who hire illegal aliens) are good bait to white trash.
The individual could not make bond, so he was held in jail – the crime it’s self does not carry a jail term.
Ironic, eh?
That tax is the dumbest idea I ever heard of! What it does is shift the ENTIRE tax burden on those who make between $15,000 and $150,000 a year! That is because the working people generally have to spend a much higher percentage of our income to live than the rich do! And the stupid stuff- like planes and yachts that the rich like to spend money on- they’d just go to Canada or overseas and buy it to avoid paying the tax on it. And this would really hurt Wichita because, if a Cessna jet has a 22% tax on it in Wichita and no tax in Mexico, where do you think Cessna is going to go?
“Just did a bit of research and I could not find anything on Democrats repealing the revocation of the marriage tax penalty or voting to decrease the dependant deduction.
Perhaps someone was just making up stuff?”
Probably but in my view marriage should have nothing to do with taxes anyway. Every person should file their own return as an individual. There should be no deductions for children or spouses. People should pay the same tax on their own income regardless of their marital status.
“I think we should tax the hell out of cigarettes, alcohol, legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it, and bring on the casinos! What about the lottery? How much of that revenue goes to the state? No one can bitch about those taxes, they’re strictly voluntary.Drop the property taxes and increase the sin taxes.”
Property taxes should be abolished in my view. People should be taxed on income and things like schools should be financed by a federal income tax that would spend $XXXX per student per year. That $XXXX would be issued in the form of an education voucher sent to the parent. The parent would then select a school based upon the needs of the child. Any school accepting the voucher would have to agree that no further tutition, books or lab fees be charged over that amount. This would accomplish 2 things- it would relieve home owners who have lived in their homes for many years and seen assessments make it hard for them to pay the taxes and it would even out the funding of poor and weathly schools thus making education equal.
TRTYour ideas are in line with Jack Kemp and others, if I read you correctly.I would love it if we could end poverty.Alcoholism, drugs, mental illness — we have cure these things first!
In regards to the post about the hair cutter or stylist above. That is an actual case of over-regulation supported by business. Why a license to cut hair? 2000 hours of schooling is a full year’s worth.
Let’s face it. Cutting hair is a skill you can learn in a week. You can be very competent at it in a month. Spend a year as an apprentice (which would likely be a paid position) and you can learn some serious craftsmanship.
The regulations are about reducing the competition. You can find all sorts of similarly anti-competition moves by government, supported by special interest lobbies. For instance you need a license in TX (or it may be LA) to be an interior decorator.
Note: I know that the chemicals used in some styling procedures (i.e. a ‘perm’) require special training. That is different than working at a Supercuts or your average barbershop.
Kev,
Read the newspaper front page.He was found “not guilty” but he served 71 days in jail awaiting trial. He could not post bond and he had a previous felony (over 10 years ago) so he could not be released on his own recognizance.
It was a sad story about the state of affairs of our justice system. The only thing I can think of worse is getting a traffic ticket that REQUIRES a person to appear in court. The traffic court downtown is an absolute disaster!
Econ:To quote: “I would love it if we could end poverty.Alcoholism, drugs, mental illness — we have cure these things first!”
They are not individual problems! When someone falls down, they need help getting up! It can be alcoholism, drugs, mental illness, medical bills, child gets sick, etc. but the problem has to be dealt with. I help people when I can. I am getting tired of people saying, “That is a problem of their own making. Let them learn their lesson!”
Yes, they should learn a lesson but they should receive help, also. The only way to really learn a lesson is to learn how to get out of the situation. That takes help, sometimes lots of help. As people learn to deal with the situations of life they can help others.
The saying is that a rising tide lifts all boats. Sometimes I feel those who have made it in life feel that is also illustrated by “lowering the water level makes my yacht look taller”. It does, but only if their boat is stuck in the mud on the bottom.
I’m sure you’ve heard about the Berkley report that says income inequality has gone crazy since 1980. And that the top 1% now gathers 16% of the income. That study is completely flawed in its approach. It used income tax data to make those determinations rather than real income. Hey, the top rate was 50% in 1980. As the rate came down, reported income went up. And with other changes in the laws, companies filed taxes as individuals.So don’t buy that crap, that the world is going to hell.
If you want to know more, go here.(http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6880http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6880You can read the short Executive summary, and if you want you can read the more detailed report in a PDF document, same page.
Thomas Jefferson,
Your stats are lovely. They do not mean zilch. I already said it’s beautiful for increasing percentages of the human race to be abroad or purchasing a yacht so as to find something to do with their time. Any fool can come in the blog and blow hot air about the free market and freedom of choice, but none of this obscures the reality that many people in this country have a hell of a struggle on their hands, especially financially. If you want to approach the world from a more original angle, feel free to participate in the more interesting discussion about how to nudge the lower income group toward a more fulfilling lot in life. I have argued that more community involvement in the education process might help, but God knows we are open to ideas.
The rich (many of them) often behave as if those that are at a lesser station in life are beneath them, in all aspects of life. In reality, we are all interconnected.
The rich achieve their wealth on the backs of the less affluent.
Don’t think so?
How long would your local McDonald’s last if everyone stopped going there? How long would General Motors last if no one bought their cars and trucks? How long could Exxon manage if everyone refused to buy their products?
Societies tend to react violently if the gap between the haves and have nots grows too large. As the disparity between rich and poor grows in the United States, so does the potential for revolt by the less well off.
In centuries past, the revolts were violent, resulting in the overthrow of governments. Today, the revolt may well be more peaceful but just as effective.
Those that are more well off may be wise to consider their demands for a lighter tax load. They may well end up looking back on these times as the “good old days.”
Good posts, Clark.
Oh, man, listen to the wing-nuts stuck on spin cycle like a washing machine with a broken cam shaft:
The study is FLAWED! FLAWED! I tell you.
The RICH DESERVE it.
Look at how much TAXES the rich pay.
England tried punitative taxation and LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!
******
Take a breath, wing-nuts.
The study isn’t flawed. The study is true, and it shows exactly what we’ve been seeing since 1972: except for a few years when Clinton-Gore taxed the rich hard, real wages in this country have been going down, poverty has been going up, more and more wealth is going to fewer and fewer people.
It’s not a statistical fluke; it’s a 35 year trend.
And the reason it happens is simple: the rich buy influence with their wealth. That’s why you’ve got Rush Limbaugh making a quarter BILLION dollars a year to spout the line that “everybody has an equal chance to be rich” and 20 million idiots tune in every week.
That’s why you’ve got Faux News, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, , The Wall Street Journal editoral page, and the Washington Times all on-message all the time saying exactly the same thing in the same language–This is the land of opportunity, the rich deserve what they’ve got, the poor deserve to be poor. If you don’t like it, move to Soviet Russia because you’re a communist.
As long as there are middle-class idiots who think someday soon they’ll be rich too–people like the unemployed Republican, the not-so-nice neighborhood dweller Econ 101, the “I-work-for-a-boss” Hank, and the “God told me to vote Republican” outlander–you’ve got a rich vein of stupidity who continues to vote against not only their own best interests, but against their society’s.
“Stupid is as stupid does,” Forrest Gump.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, which she expressed openly.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her-heart felt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.
She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many College friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Mary?” She replied,Mary is barely getting by, all she has is barely a 2.0 grade point average, AND all she takes are easy classes and she never studies.” But to explain further she continued emotionally, “But Mary is so very popular on campus. College for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn’t even show up for classes because she is too hung over.”
Her father then asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only had a 2.0?” He continued, “That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA.” The daughter, visibly shocked by the father’s suggestion, angrily firedback, “That wouldn’t be fair! I worked really hard for mine. I did without and Mary has done little or nothing. She played while I worked real hard!”
The father slowly smiled and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”
Is there a requirement that a wingnut has to post that ridiculous made up story once a week?
Capn???”Not so nice neighborhood dweller?
What the heck do you mean by that?
I have lived in College Hill, I have lived in a Frat Dorm on the WSU campus. I lived for a short time in a Marine Barracks. I now live in the Cherry Creek neighborhood in SE Wichita. Not to be defensive at all, but I am not sure what you mean.
Also, Capn and WS
I repeat: INCOME IS VOLUNTARY!
If you tax income at too high a rate, the rich will simply stop earning that much.
Also, Cosmo, during the Clinton Years as during the Carter Years, the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich went DOWN!
Supply side tax cuts, supported by JFK (Democrat) and Reagan and George W. Bush actually INCREASE the percentage of total taxes paid by the “rich”.
This is PSYCHOLOGY, not MATH.
No incentives?
No income
No tax revenue!
“As long as there are middle-class idiots who think someday soon they’ll be rich too–people like the unemployed Republican, the not-so-nice neighborhood dweller Econ 101, the “I-work-for-a-boss” Hank, and the “God told me to vote Republican” outlander–you’ve got a rich vein of stupidity who continues to vote against not only their own best interests, but against their society’s.”
There has to be a better way to sell the alternative besides saying “You dumb asses are voting against you self interests”. The foregoing may be an accurate summary of events, but I am not seeing how it helps people change what they are doing. If it doesn’t work, how useful can it be? – is my question?
I mean simply that a lot of you wanna-be rich folks are the willing fools of the really rich folks.
And are the Cheney’s and the Rumsfeld’s and the Steve Forbes’and the Koch bros. laughing their asses off at the Cherry Hill Republicans who continue to cut their own throats so that they can increase their income every year more than your entire neighborhood is worth?
Yes, they are.
How’s it feel to be played for the sucker you are?
Hey, Paul, when will the National Debt be paid off and when will the entitlement obligations be funded?
We can talk taxes after you answer those questions.
RustyFordDid you read my post on the “hot dog theif” above?I know the guy.His meals in jail might well have been better than what he would have had on the streets.Also, he was not able to hurt anyone, while in jail.I feel sorry for him.I did try to help him, on several occasions.Again, I know him.I am guessing he should have been convicted.I know he was guilty, when he was in our custody, 20 years ago, and we let him go.Part of his defense, 20 years ago, was, “See, I got the money, why would I steal?” Same as this time!He repaid that lucky break, 20 years ago, by staying drunk and running over a kid and dragging her for over a block.The hot dog case has nothing to do with tax cuts or tax increases, economics or political parties.The man has had SEVERAL chances in life.Alcoholism is real.He did not drink in jail.The system kept him out of trouble during that time period.Obviously, this is too expensive to do in every case. — However,don’t waste tears on Mr. Wimberly, cry for his family and those he has hurt, besides himself.I just wish Mr. Wimberly had spent 71 days in jail instead of being forgiven for shoplifting, by ME, at Safeway, 20 years ago!
Good point, Steven.
But you and I are different in that regard. I believe that a number of post-ers here have shown that no evidence is capable of swaying them.
Jesus could come down from heaven with a host of angels behind him and say in a voice of thunder: “vote only for Democratic candidates” and these people would still vote Republican.
So I don’t try to reason with them.
Come on, Paul, I doubt anybody here, but the most gullible, would buy your recount of reality.
I am in firmly in the middle-class, for now at least. The late 90’s was the best economic time this country has ever had that I am recalling. Under the Clinton administration there was a concern and policies that favored the middle class. That is not true now. I am making considerably more money than I was in the late 90’s, but I am ever fearful that could be taken away, because of the emphasis on the super-rich the Bush regime has pushed. All citizens are much more vulnerable under Bush – even you.
You may be correct, Capn.
CapnI envy no one.I am a relatively happy person.My happiness does not depend on keeping up with the Joneses or anyone else.I also realize that attacking the rich does not do one positive thing for the poor.It never has.Yes, the rich like to sell things.Think how much more things the rich could sell us if we were all rich!The rich have a vested interest in seeing everyone get rich.The Democrats have a vested interest in maintaining poverty at its present levels.
WSForward funding of entitlement programs is impossible.For all practicle purposes, the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund don’t exist.The Bonds in the trust funds will be paid off by taxpayers.When the bonds are depleated, taxpayers will pay these liabilites directly.Paying bonds offPaying current beneficiariesEither way, taxpayers pay.Again, it is not possible to forward fund entitlements.
“I am in firmly in the middle-class, for now at least. The late 90’s was the best economic time this country has ever had that I am recalling. Under the Clinton administration there was a concern and policies that favored the middle class. That is not true now. I am making considerably more money than I was in the late 90’s, but I am ever fearful that could be taken away, because of the emphasis on the super-rich the Bush regime has pushed.”
Interestingly, this is a paradox for Bushco. Shouldn’t I be happier? I am making more money, after all. I am not.
The Bushes have a way of turning the beauty of America into a sewer of despotic hate. Recall the elder Bush’s 1992 motto, “A kinder, gentler America” – he knew that his form of governing made it more difficult to live in the U.S. The problem with Junior, he doesn’t recognize these basic truths the old-man knew. Junior should listen to his earthly father more often would be my only suggestion for that jerk.
“The rich have a vested interest in seeing everyone get rich.”
Say what?
We are all rich compared to folks two centuries ago, but I am sure that the rich of today have no real interest in helping anyone else get rich.
The few rich people I have known were some of the stingiest people I have ever met.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“Also, Cosmo, during the Clinton Years…”
I haven’t posted on this thread before now.
Perhaps you typed my name because I’ve pointed out MULTIPLE times that JFK cut the marginal tax rate from the HUGE 91% down to 70%?
‘JUST LIKE AL SAID! Russert [and Paul F. Rosell] pushed them RNC points.’http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120202.shtml
Paul F. Rosell STILL does NOT understand the Laffer curve.
Are you going to reply to my post to you re your #1 and #2 questions?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/warming_usherin.html#comment-65641486
How do you plan on paying the off the National Debt, Paul, and where is the $75K that I put into the SS fund?
As evidence for my jaundiced view, Steven, I present the reaction of the wing-nuts to this study.
It’s a simple and straightforward study. How many people are making how much? It’s not an opinion poll; it doesn’t require assumptions about cause and effect.
It simply takes numbers about income and wealth from neutral and uncontroversial sources and breaks them down as percentages.
And listen to the right-wing: “it’s a FLAWED study . . . it doesn’t take into account the income taxes . . . the Democrats are the ones who are rich,” anything but admit that wealth inequality is growing under this president and that wealth inequality is bad.
Well, wealth inequality is growing, tax breaks for the rich help speed wealth inequality, and wealth inequality is bad.
But don’t take my word for it, take the richest investor in the world’s word for it, Warren Buffett: “I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment, and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes [medicare and social security taxes] than I do.” And so do we all, because although few of us have noticed, since 1962 the share of total federal receipts from the regressive payroll tax has been quietly rising from 17 to 40 percent.
Buffett was also against the repeal of the so-called “death tax” because he warned of the idle, unproductive rich living off the estates of their elders.
StevenName the actual policy supported by Clinton that helped the poor?
Welfare reform? Was that it?
A tax rate increase that actually reduced the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich?
What did Clinton DO that helped the poor?
Let me be clear, above, I think kicking some people off of welfare DID help them, but liberal dems did not like that!
The Debt, Paul, how do you expect to pay off the Debt? Just paying the interest on the Debt consumes 30% of the Fed Budget. As the Debt continues to rise, that percentage will obviously grow. If you managed your finances like the Federal Government, your banker would drag you out in the alley and kick the snot out of you.
We have had twelve years of Democratic presidency since 1968. Of our current Debt of $9 trillion, at least $8 trillion was generated under Republican presidents.
So, unless you severely cut programs, including the military and SS, you are going to have to raise taxes. By severely I mean SLASH the HELL out of everything from benefits to military to NASA to Federal pensions.
So the real question is when do you raise taxes, by how much and on whom?
WSYour history is simplistic and your “remedy” is counterproductive.
Think of it this way: You inherit a car dealership. You think that your relative, the deceased, should have made more money at this venture.
You raise all of your prices by 25%
Does your profit go up by 25%?
More than likey, your inherited business fails.
You raised the price and the people said NO very loudly!
Same is true of raising taxes.
We dont have to work hard. We WANT to work hard.
Raise taxes and we wont work as hard.
Taxes revenues go DOWN!
So when will the tax cuts result in a balance budget, Paul……
Answer – in 2012 at the earliest, at which time the Debt will be $10.5 trillion.
So when will the Debt be paid?
You can work hard or you can not work hard, the Debt is still real and it still has to be paid.
China has cash reserves equal to $1 trillion American.
Japan has cash reserves of $0.75 trillion.
The USA has a Debt of $9 trillion.
…. and that does not even include our $39 trillion entitlement obligations.
So, who has a healthy economy?
Taxes will have to be raised at some point to pay for the spending splurge that we have been on for the last forty years.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
You seem to be completely clueless about both the Laffer Curve and human-caused GW.
By the way, Paul, the GDP is only $12.5 trillion. The Debt and the GDP will soon reach the tipping point.
The 2012 GDP is expected to be just under $13 trillion. If the more realistic projections are used, the Debt at that time will be $11.5 trillion.
It does not look good……..
WSWhy hurt companies that are already paying 2.5x in taxes what they make in net profits?
“But it’s also a tax-burdened company. While ExxonMobil recorded record profits last year, it also paid $100.7 billion in taxes — two-and-half times its net profits, according to the Tax Foundation. In fact, over the past twenty-five years, federal and state governments took $397 billion from the largest oil companies and an additional $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today’s dollars, that’s $2.2 trillion.”
As Kudlow points out, corporate taxes are higher in the USA than they are in France!
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmQ2MDY4ZmFjZDkwZTUyZTIyNTAwMjIyY2Q5NWM5ZTM=
WSThe Budget Deficit is half of its average size since 1970:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html
George W has had to deal with war, record breaking national disasters, and a recession that started prior to his term.
As JFK said, “Deficits are caused by periodic recessions.”
Clinton benefited from demographics. The baby boomers entered the peak spending, earning and investing years under Clintons term.
Harry Dent predicted, precisely, what would happen under Clinton prior to Clinton being sworn in.
Again, what policy did Clinton support that had ANYTHING to do with the economy? Clinton benefited from the same thing that helped Gerber baby food, then helped Keds and Schwin, then apartment building ect.As the “pig in the python” — the boomers, moved through the economy, everything changed.
Clinton also benefited from the Reagan tax rate cuts.
Even so, in Clintons final year, after his tax increase took effect, we had a recession!
So how is the United States to avoid bankruptcy if we continue to run a deficit budget and do not pay down our existing debt?
It is easy to say that raising taxes reduces revenue, yada, yada, but the DEBT is real. It has to be paid. We cannot continue to to pay thirty percent of our Federal expenditures just to service the Debt.
The Debt has to be paid down. How are you going to do it?
The Clinton tax increase took place in 1994, not 1999. Nice try, Paul, but thanks for playing the game.
The Debt is approaching the GDP. Thirty percent of our expenditures are just to service the debt.
No one in their right mind could say that this is a healthy economy.
We are just postponing the inevitable.
Something has to give – something has to change.
What is it going to be?
The Bush regime is continuing the Reagan era plan of bankrupting the government. They figure the strain the budget has the more social programs will have to be eliminated. That’s why Reagan made drastic cuts in social spending in order to pay for his tax cuts for the rich (he also made tax increases on the middle and lower economic classes). He wanted to do more but was blocked from doing more damage by the Democratic congress.
So it’s no surprise under Republican leadership the national debt has continued to grow. Under Clinton the budget was quickly balanced and that threw “fiscal conservatives” into an uproar, but Bush made them happy by bringing us back into debt spending again.
$300 billion a year going to paying the interest on that debt. With that sort of cash we could invest in our nation’s infrastructure and be competitive in a lot of industry that we’ve fallen behind in. But nope, conservatives aren’t interested in any of that and they will continue to wreck our economy until social programs are eliminated along with the middle class. I don’t expect Paul to understand this, I don’t expect him to understand much of anything.
Torture the numbers long enough and they’ll confess to anything. Like Harry Truman, I long for a one-armed economist who isn’t able to say, “On the other hand….”
I look to history, hoping to avoid repeating it. And history tells us when the have-nots overwhelmingly outnumber the haves, all hell breaks loose. France, Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam… do a little reading and you’ll see that prosperity and stability in a society depends, and has always depended, on a balance of benefits from the wealth that society generates.
Unfettered capitalism in the 19th Century led to opulent “cottages” in Newport, Rhode Island built on the backs of exploitation of labor (including child labor), company towns, robber baron ethics, racism, sexism, heroin-laced patent medicines, stock market speculation that fueled the Great Depression…
And the alternative — Soviet Marxism, born of the abuses of unfettered capitalism — lasted about as long.
Somewhere, somehow, there must be a middle ground.
Yes, there should be the incentive of the marketplace. But yes, a people that are motivated to create so much wealth should share some of the wealth their ingenuity produces. And yes, there are the lazy, the derelict, the infirm, and the unworthy who will suck at the teat of the innovators, the inventers, the speculators, the inheritors, the lucky… but promoting an autocracy of the wealthy is a sure prescription for rebellion by the poor.
And that is a sure prescription for chaos. Because the poor will have justice on their side and the rich will have merit on their side. Only problem is, the poor will have the numbers.
I’ve been researching an obscure phenomenon of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. It’s hard to imagine, but there was a time when municipal water and sewer systems were controversial. I’ve focused on small towns because the record is spelled out more extensively in small-town newspapers and documents; they didn’t have all that many other issues to cover compared to larger cities.
Wealthy neighborhoods could sustaine themsleves with cysterns and septic tanks (or “honey creeks”), but in the poorer neighborhoods (usually downstream of septic tanks and honey creeks) disease was decimating the 20-cents-a-day laborers. Eventually the cost of disease persuaded the entrepreneurs to suck it up and pay more in taxes to finance water and sewer systems.
A hundred years later, in the 21st Centurey, health care is becoming the new sewer system.
As important and as basic as clean water and sanitary sewers have become to what we consider to be civilized soceity, access to healthcare services is an essential right of all who live in this highly successful, incredibly wealthy society.
Who’s more important? The people who create wealth? Or the people who invest their resouces toward generating wealth? A hundred years ago, when it was still acceptable in polite society to exploit women and children and minorities and condemn workers who could not rise above their class, even the wealthiest saw some sort of societal benefit to creating water and sewer systems.
Today, conservative politicians thrive on exploiting the selfish greed of human nature by stressing a “What’s in it for *ME*?” philosophy.
The Limbaugh-tomized masses seem incapable of asking, “What’s in it for *us*?”
America’s prosperity should not be an either/or question. It should not devolve into the haves and have-nots.
You should be able to make a fine living, secure stable housing, raise kids with the opportunities to achieve, be secure from curable diseases, transcend bigotry, overcome external mishaps, aspire toward dreams, strive toward fulfillment, get your just rewards, honor your commitments, trust your neighbor, feel a one-ness with your fellow humans, and rejoice in life.
Sorry. That’s not Republican Party policy these days.
And, to be fair, it’s not quite what the Democrats are doing.
The only difference is, the Democrats are closer to the goal, and are closer to working toward that goal, than anybody else.
It’s either “Every Man For Himself” which is the contemporary basis of what passes for “conservatism” or it’s “We’re all in this together.”
I know enough people who are richer than I, poorer than I, have darker skin than mine, are sexually attracted to people in ways that I’m not, who worship in ways I cannot embrace, and believe in philosophies I personally cannont accept…and yet I can accept their differences because we have so much in common.
We aren’t just passengers on Spaceship Earth. We’re the crew.
Let’s try to get it together.
Mark 14:7 – For ye have the poor always with you…VERY little can be done to equalize wealth. You’re fighting the bell curve. Majority in the middle, minority at the ends of the spectrum. It’s natural. Funny how intelligence corrolates fairly closely with wealth. Same principle…don’t fight it. However, “poor” Americans are far better off than middle class of most nations.
Wayne MM–
Totally wrong.
Again.
Japan and Europe have income and life-styles that are much more egalitarian than here.
Only an ignorant schlemperke would say that the poor here are better off than the middle class of Japan or Ireland or Italy.
Wayne’s right, the poor here have it a lot better than most countries. I just got back from Palau…the cost of gas there is around $4 per gallon, the average wage is $1.75 per hour. The cost of food and clothing is the same as here. When someone gets incarcerated, they learn how to make art that is sold at the jail, it’s the only way they can support their family while in jail, because there is no social system in place to take care of their kids while they’re locked up. They also fish for their food if they can be trusted outside of the jail for short periods (there’s no place to run). While I was there I toured the jail, ever see the movie “Midnight Express”? That’s exactly what it was like, crowded, filthy dirty, run down, no library, free education or legal serice, no A/C or comforts of any kind.There is no health care for the disabled or anyone else, even the lowest paying jobs are in short supply, and there are no opportunitities to work hard and get ahead. When I go to these places, I kiss the ground when I get back to the US, even with all our problems, we still live in the best place in the world if a person wants to make something of their life. While I was there, I had locals approach me and ask if I could do anything to help them get to the US, they feel totally stuck and most live hand to mouth.And yes, WS…I pay my housekeeper $20 per hour (that’s the going rate), and she’s worth every penny!!
I’ve just skimmed the posts in this thread; interesting no one has discussed the Alternative Minimum Tax (that I’ve seen).Probably because it doesn’t affect any of the posters here.
Yet another great myth brought to you by the left!
There is not X amount of wealth in the world to have.
This study says that of te wealth made, those at the top are making more of it than those at the bottom.
Everyone is still getting richer, just those at the top got more.
VaughnThe AMT or Alternative Minimum Tax is a nightmare to advisors.
We have to run the numbers twice, for a whole lot of people, just to make sure we dont get ourselves in trouble.
Of course, for the accountants and attorneys that live off of “billable hours” — well they like the AMT!
WSClark
I dont mean to be a smart ass, but I dont know how else to explain my feelings about the deficit:
Raising taxes wont cure the common cold.I dont like the common cold.Lets raise taxes to cure the common cold!
Sorry, again, but logic fails in your arguement.
Raising tax rates does not raise revenues.
Our country carried higher debt levels, as a percentage of GDP, under FDR, Truman and Eisenhower.
In my opinion, the Cold War and the War on Terror warrant the same attention as WW2.
We paid down that debt. We will pay down this debt. (As long as the greenies dont kill the economy with carbon taxes.)
Actually, Paul, while the AMT provides greater income potential to me in my practice, I don’t like it, as presently in force. Not a lot of fun to break the news to a client that the “tax free” investment is, of course, free of federal income taxes, but since the investment was in “specified private activity bonds” (as an example), there’s this little matter of the AMT. Oh, well.
Understand how it complicates your life, Paul; I think while we might disagree on other things, I think we would agree that this particular thing needs an overhaul, at a minimum.
VaughnGlad we agree on something!
Please remember, the AMT came about as a legislative response to a very select few number of people paying no income tax at all.The law is a ass, and hard cases make very bad law.We try to use a sledgehammer to pound a thumbtack, we dont index for inflation, and we are stuck with the AMT.Now, we have the AMT, which makes life hard for lots of people it was never intended to affect at all.Envy is a very bad thing!Envy brought us the AMT, a rule that prevents people from doing what is best with their money.
Paul, I don’t know if “envy” was the cause, with the effect being the AMT, or whether there was a sense that some form of taxation should be paid by those taking advantage of certain “tax favored” investments, etc. I’ll leave that discussion to others.
You are correct when you say there are many folks adversely affected by the AMT who were not within the class of “nontaxpayers” for whom the AMT was created. Thus, the need for indexing as an example.
A closing thought: I believe there should be some form of taxation on Private Activity Bond income, which is income tax free under current law, but which is subject to the AMT, assuming the conditions for imposition of the AMT on a taxpayer are otherwise met. If the bonds were issued directly by the entity involved in the activity, this income would be subject to income taxation; why should the fact there is a governmental unit issuing the bonds change this result? Perhaps the more direct way to attack this is to remove PABs from the general definition of “tax exempt” security.
Paul, I might buy your argument about the War, yada, yada, yada, but that “war” began 9/11. What about all the deficit spending prior to that?
Your argument is disingenuous. Reagan and Bush I ran up HUGE deficit. What was the excuse then?
Omitted from my 4:40 p.m. post; delete period from final sentence thereof and add the following:perhaps with the interest thereon treated somewhat differently from the interest from privately issued bonds, that is, subject to a lower income tax rate, analogous to “qualified dividends” as an example.
It must be a terrible burden to have all that money! Those rich people are so noble, carrying it around for the rest of us, but seeing as how there are so few of them and so many of us, shouldn’t we insist on helping shoulder the load?
VaughnA bond company investment banker, years ago, told me that Boeing owned the largest single chunk of Boeing IRB’s.By asking for the land, in effect, to be placed in trust (Thats what happens on IRB financing) so that the municipal bonds can be issued under federal law, Boeing was required to borrow money.In order to receive the property tax break, Boeing borrowed money it didnt need, bought back its own bonds at little or no commission, paid its IRB payments into the trust account, which paid that money right back to Boeing as tax free interest.— If your head is swimming now, so was mine at the time.Anyway, I have no trouble with some restrictions on Private Activity Bonds, or Industrial Revenue Bonds as we used to call them, as long as that is a package deal to get rid of the AMT.
WSReagan, again, came into office under the Clinton recession.
“Deficits are caused not by wild-eyed spending, but by periodic recessions” John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy’s comments aside, it is important to note that federal revenues have always gone up dramatically after every tax rate cut. Spending, unfortunately, tends to go up even faster sometimes.
Bush 1 raised tax rates, a dumb move politically and economically.That hurt the economy and also hurt the deficit.
Rather than focus on debt or deficits or any other factor, government should focus on GDP growth.
Keey our eyes on growth and everything else, financially speaking, will work itself out just fine.
Before you dismiss this arguement answer this: WHO will pay taxes if businesses shut down and unemployment rises?
“Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax (rate) cuts will pave the way to full employment.” John F. Kennedy to the Economic Club of New York.
Lloyd Bentsen, Democrat Senator and running mate if Mike Dukakis, quoted JFK when Bentsen supported Reagans tax cuts on the floor of the Senate.
WSThe Social Security Trust Fund warrants its own thread sometime.
However, those who claim that Clinton “balanced the budget” use current revenues vs current expenditures to make that claim.
Clinton, like every Congress and every President, uses the “surplus” in SS to fund the General Fund expenses.
That is what those “bonds” in the “trust fund” do, they convert SS payments into general revenue.
So, Paul, the US was in a recession from the mid-Seventies until 1998?
Reagan PROMISED that his tax cuts would stimulate the economy and balance the budget, a process GHWB called “voodoo economics.”
It never happened. The budget was finally balanced in 1999 AFTER Clinton RAISED taxes.
So, how did Clinton raising taxes lead to a surplus budget?
BTW – Most economists conclude that the recession began in March 2001.
“use current revenues vs current expenditures to make that claim.”
With the exception of George W Bush who takes the War on Iraq “OFF BUDGET” so that they do not show i the total deficit projections.
WSThe stock market began its decline on the day that Clinton sued Microsoft.
WS your claim that MOST economists conclude that the recession began in March 2001 is false. Saying it doesn’t make it so.
Also two prominent scientists (MIT no less) came out today calling Gores attacks about GW nonsense. Saying it is real doesn’t make it so either. Ignoring the facts is foolish.
Maybe you spent to much time today slinging mud and not enough researching.
“The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).
The fed funds rate — the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve — peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, “in light of further weakening of sales and production” (during the Clinton administration).
As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration).
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200405050850.asp
I do not discuss “facts” with someone that claims that Mark Foley was a Democrat and that he had only been a Republican for one term, as you did today Ms. Grm.
Mark Foley was elected to Congress in 1994 as a Republican and he has always been a member of the GOP.
You deliberately spread a lie that was intended to make Democrats culpable for Mark Foley.
There is no point in discussing anything else with you. Your facts have proven to be anything but factual.
And, if you are going to claim that I “do the same thing yada, yada” post proof of your accusation before you take a shot.
You still are not answering the question, Paul. Reagan PROMISED a balanced budget – it didn’t happen.
The budget was balanced after the Clinton tax increase. You will notice, of course, that I did NOT say that it was balanced BECAUSE of the tax increase.
It is fairly well known that you can stimulate the economy with deficit spending. Borrow a quarter of your annual income and your personal economy will be stimulated.
The new result is that the Debt is due and it is due now.
Ws you were right about Foley and it was just wishful thinking on my part. OK we have to claim him. Mea Culpa
That doesn’t speak to the start of the recession. There are specific guidelines about the start of recessions and the facts don’t fit your picture. Greenspan should have dropped interest rates in Oct. of 2000 but being a good friend of Al Gore’s he wanted us to think the economy was better that he actually was.
It backfired and we all paid the price.
Published on Friday, March 10, 2000 in The NationAlan Greenspan Intends To Take The Glow Off Gore’s Best Feel-Good Issue–The Stock Marketby William Greider
http://www.commondreams.org/views/031000-102.htm
This article is pretty informative about what makes up a recession. It also points up what Greenspan should have done and didn’t do in March 2000 when the stock started to slip. The real recession was underway in the fall of 2000.
“…while the incomes of the bottom 90 percent of Americans dipped an average of 0.6 percent.”
This is the Eagle’s definition of “getting hosed”.
“If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” said economist Emmanuel Saez.
And who ever told Manny the world was fair?
My last point is that it’s possible to be rich and still be mediocre, while a great man might emerge from the throes of debt. Balzac wrote his novels while dodging creditors at luxurious hotels. Do we remember any of the rich from his era? Only if they distinguished themselves in some other fashion. Material gain is just that. Greatness is a gift, a little bit of flair that’s worth remembering.
Liberals
I dont defend the rich because of any emotional attraction to them.
I do so because attacking the rich is bad for all of us.
By making the “rich” our whipping boys, we do not look in the mirror and correct our own problems.
Also, again, we measure wealth by income, in all of these studies. I know several wealthy people who legally show less than $50,000 in income on their tax returns. Taxing income prevents wealth accumulation and distorts decision making. The truly wealthy don’t need much income. The surgeon who just started making real money at age 30 might be showing $200,000 or more income, but he also has student loan debt greater than YOUR house!Income tax returns are a poor method of measuring wealth. There is no way to “amortize” or spread that out over time. The person that sacrifices for 10 or 15 years and makes it “big” should not be punished with higher rates.
I prefer doing business with the self made businesspeople and the blue collar types that have been frugal and saved all their lives.
Many of those people scratched and saved, some even went bust a few times before their efforts paid off. They finally made it because they did not envy others, they did not blame others, and they fixed their own problems.
If you don’t like being poor then do something about it. It this country it’s up to you, not me, to see that you have the things you need. There are myriads of places where help is available, and places where education for about any subject can be obtained. I can drive down almost any street and find an immigrant that came here with nothing and now is living a good life. If you don’t want to pay taxes then become rich but until then for God’s sake stop whining about it because the real problem is looking back at you from any mirror.