RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Reich writes: "The major issue decided in last week's election was that the rich should pay more. So, presumably, that $1.6 trillion should come out of the pockets of the wealthiest Americans."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


Raising Taxes on the Rich

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

16 November 12

 

The President's Opening Bid on the Grand Bargain (III): The Difference Between "Broadening the Tax Base" and Raising Taxes on the Rich

he President says he wants $1.6 trillion in tax hikes. Republicans say they won't raise tax rates but might be willing to close some loopholes and limit some deductions and tax credits. Is compromise in the air?

Not a chance. True enough, such "base broadening," as Republicans like to call it, could conceivably generate $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenues over the next decade.

But, wait. Didn't the President just win a second term? The major issue decided in last week's election was that the rich should pay more. So, presumably, that $1.6 trillion should come out of the pockets of the wealthiest Americans.

"Broadening the base" has nothing whatever to do with the rich paying more. That's because a lot of tax credits and deductions help the middle class and the poor.

If we end the Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, some of the poorest Americans will end up sacrificing. That tab was $63 billion last year.

Or if the "loophole" is tax-free employee health care, or the home mortgage tax deduction, or tax-deferred 401K accounts, most of the added tax revenues will come out of the pockets of the middle class.

So when Republicans talk about "broadening the base," watch your wallets. Now that the President has set his goal on $1.6 trillion in additional taxes, the question is whether the rich are going to cough up $1.6 trillion more.

There's no way that $1.6 trillion can come out of the pockets of the wealthy merely by capping the deductions the wealthy take advantage of.

If Republicans won't budge on raising tax rates but insist on broadening the base, Democrats should take aim at the biggest tax loophole of all for America's wealthy: the preference for capital gains.

Capital gains are now taxed at only 15 percent (the major reason Mitt Romney pays a rate of under 14 percent on over $20 million of annual income). Capital gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income. That way, under a progressive tax system, the wealthy would pay far more - on the way to $1.6 trillion.



Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+49 # dbriz 2012-11-16 16:01
Taxes are going up on the rich, Bob. Count on it.

CG's and dividends will end up in the 20-25% category with dividends likely the lower of the two.

I would be more worried about from whence come those spending cuts.
 
 
+76 # BradFromSalem 2012-11-16 20:32
dbriz, You hit the nail on the head. Just today, Mr Turtle (McConnell) noted how critical it was that they make sure the middle class suffers by making give up their safety net that they have paid into the entire working careers. And in case Mr. Turtle doesn't get it. I have always understood that I have not been paying just for myself, but also for those that have not earned as much as me. I pay for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid to help out everyone in America.
 
 
+25 # ER444 2012-11-17 03:33
Heh Brad, finally an American who understands the concept of "solidarity". Unfortunately the Social Darwinists in the Republican Party believe in dog eat dog. I wonder what they pray for on Sundays. It is time to throw the money changers out of the temple again !!! If Obama doesn't stick to his guns this time I have voted for the last time.
 
 
+8 # JSRaleigh 2012-11-17 11:35
Quoting ER444:
Heh Brad, finally an American who understands the concept of "solidarity". Unfortunately the Social Darwinists in the Republican Party believe in dog eat dog. I wonder what they pray for on Sundays. It is time to throw the money changers out of the temple again !!! If Obama doesn't stick to his guns this time I have voted for the last time.


I'm perfectly willing to have GOP Social Darwinists ground up for dog food.
 
 
-4 # Eliza D 2012-11-17 20:15
Vote for Social Justice Party next time. Things will not get better with our current system. Obama still owes Wall Street and wants those $50K speaking engagements post-presidency to increase his wealth.
 
 
+2 # brux 2013-03-30 16:32
For every one that pays taxes in America, and that should be everyone who works, they should pay slightly higher taxes than people who make less money than they do, and slightly lower taxes than people who make more money than they do ... throughout the full range of incomes ... that would align political interests correctly and stop corruption dead.
 
 
-25 # Independentgal 2012-11-17 08:45
Dividends are taxed at an ordinary income rate.
 
 
+26 # Texas Aggie 2012-11-17 09:59
No, they're not. There is a category called "qualified dividends" for accounts that have been held more than a year where the dividends get beyond preferential treatment.
 
 
+11 # doneasley 2012-11-17 13:35
Quoting Independentgal:
Dividends are taxed at an ordinary income rate.


Ordinary dividends are taxed at the rate of the bracket you're in, but qualified dividends are taxed at a 15% rate. And you can bet the rich are working with qualified dividends.

You're taxed at a 15% rate on capital gains if your total income places you in the twenty-five percent tax bracket or higher? But it can be as low as 0% if you're in the 10 to 15% bracket.

So Mitt would be paying 15% on both, but other deductions would take him below the 15% rate overall.

I believe ALL dividends and cap gains should be treated as ordinary income. Rich Americans have sucked the juice out our economy. They cry "CLASS WARFARE" after the damage has already been done. The "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH" mantra that they always fall back on was in full swing (upward) under George Bush, and will continue unabated if something isn't done about it - NOW!
 
 
+9 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-11-17 11:43
The rich own the government. Obama, with his bipartisanship, will not admit that the Republicans have been defeated. He will still cater to them and ignore the will of the people. No cuts in Social Security and Medicare are needed. Instead of cutting programs we need to up the funding for these very necessary programs. This can be done during the lame duck Congress if we, the people of this nation, get out on the streets in great numbers and INSIST on a 1% sales tax on all transactions on the stock market. Having gotten the attention of the corrupt creatures in Congress we can move forward to insist on an end to the wars and serious programs to reverse global warming. The Creeps in Congress, who are beholden to the fossil fuel corporations will not do a damn thing until we frighten them with a demonstration of the power of the people to demand good government.
 
 
0 # ghostperson 2013-03-31 09:30
Right on!
 
 
+1 # brux 2013-03-30 16:30
> CG's and dividends will end up in the 20-25% category with dividends likely the lower of the two.

That is not enough ... and why is there this artificial segregation of income that puts the burden on workers ... because they are working too hard to pay attention to what is going on around them?
 
 
-73 # grandone@charter.net 2012-11-16 23:08
But what would be the incentive to invest in the markets if they are taxed the same as earned income?
 
 
+30 # DPM 2012-11-16 23:30
The same incentive the investor class has always had, the opportunity to make even more. They aren't as interested in the bucks as they are in "winning" or "getting over". But, they know when they do "win" or "get over", the money follows.
 
 
+31 # Billy Bob 2012-11-16 23:40
The incentive is that it's profitable. Even if you tax people they'd still rather make money than go hungry.
 
 
+30 # Billy Bob 2012-11-16 23:45
Capital gains earners didn't always have the ability to opt out of their civic duty, but they still managed to make investments. The argument that money not earned from work should be exempt from paying for public services pretty much makes a big fat lie out of the conservative mantra of a "flat tax", doesn't it?
 
 
+25 # wherefore 2012-11-17 00:12
Incentive #1 - still make lots of money without doing any work.
Incentive #2 - do good for others by creating opportunities for productive work.
Incentive #3 - decrease the ratio of camels getting through the eye of a needle/rich people getting through the gates of heaven.
 
 
+21 # MidwestDick 2012-11-17 00:53
Profits. Income.
What is the incentive to go to work?. Why not tax profits and not wages? instead of vice versa.
 
 
+7 # Texas Aggie 2012-11-17 10:01
Profits are taxed. That is why the right wing is having their hissy fit about "small businesses" that make over $250,000 a year.
 
 
+15 # tapelt 2012-11-17 01:35
The money they would make after taxes. That should be incentive enough, unless they are taking an unusually high risk.
 
 
+21 # Jerry 2012-11-17 02:39
What else are they going to do with it? A few billion under the mattress might not be safe enough. And the wealthy live off their investments. Do you think they would rather spend down their wealth supporting their lavish lives, or net a little less return on their investments, still leaving them enough to support said lives and accumulate more - just a little less rapidly?
 
 
+16 # SusanT136 2012-11-17 04:36
Quoting grandone@charter.net:
But what would be the incentive to invest in the markets if they are taxed the same as earned income?


The same incentive as it is now - you get to earn money based on your decisions as to what is a good investment choice, with little or no actual labor involved (I recognize some folks do spend time on research but for the most part that is a limited amount of time). What else are people who have excess money going to do with it? Stuff it under their mattress?
 
 
+18 # Texas Aggie 2012-11-17 10:05
The word "mattress" is actually spelled "off-shore tax haven."
 
 
+16 # Bruce Gruber 2012-11-17 06:02
The incentives to invest will come from companies and entrepreneurs successfully marketing their ideas and successes that suggest a return on investment from profits (earnings without labor). Today we have a lottery style gambling casino promoted by hucksters who gamble by hedging against their own 'marks'. Having a share of stock gives virtually no one a voice in the ownership of capital in capitalism. It seems a con game to keep peasants in the village while the nobles and their court admonish the rabble to cut more wood faster to keep warm.
 
 
+22 # golferdawn 2012-11-17 06:34
I believe, Mr. Grandone that this income used to be taxed at a much higher rate and these people still invested in the market.
 
 
+11 # Jerry 2012-11-17 12:00
The book, 13 Bankers, writen by Simon Johnson - former chief economist for the IMF, stated that the GNP grew the fastest in U.S. history when the top income tax rate is over 50% and the capital gain tax is over 25%.
 
 
+17 # bingers 2012-11-17 06:54
Quoting grandone@charter.net:
But what would be the incentive to invest in the markets if they are taxed the same as earned income?



The same as it is now, profit. It's just fair to expect coupon clippers to pay the same as those who work for it.
 
 
+17 # guyachs 2012-11-17 07:43
Is this a serious question? You can make much more on the market. You can also lose on the market. In times of inflation, I'm in the market to hedge against the inflation.
 
 
+7 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-11-17 13:23
Grandone, they would have the exact same incentive that blue collar workers have to work for the investor class. Bush,s tax cuts were the biggest transfer of the national debt to the middle class and transfer of wealth to the top 5% in history. It is time to turn that around.before we become like medieval Europe in the Dark Ages!
 
 
+8 # RLF 2012-11-17 15:39
That you earn income just like some schmuck who picks up garbage on the streets and pays more than that. I can't believe the blinders some people wear!
 
 
+1 # patriot9878 2012-11-18 15:42
I guess we're just going to have to kill the politicians and change the tax laws and if that doesn't make any difference just hire more politiicians
 
 
+4 # JJM 2012-11-17 22:45
I don't even know what that means, like a rich person making money off of investments is going to say "you know what these new taxes suck, I guess I'm just going to have to get a job and work for a living instead" On what planet would someone think that way and stop investing
 
 
-1 # patriot9878 2012-11-18 15:42
Quoting grouchy:
A very simple question we should as is WHY SHOULD THE 1% NOT PAY THE SAME TAX THAT WE DO! Then sit back and listen to the B.S. rationalizations they will give--then blow these lies out of the water with some very loud truths! It's time for this scam game to stop!

If they didn't tax the poor for labor they would go out and spend what they saved. The economy might take off if we just quit taxing labor
 
 
+2 # Cassandra2012 2012-11-19 15:59
The ssme incentive for any kind of gambling to the gambler ...
 
 
0 # flippancy 2013-03-30 19:36
Quoting grandone@charter.net:
But what would be the incentive to invest in the markets if they are taxed the same as earned income?


Investing in the markets does nothing at all to help the overall economy, and investing would still bring in added income. If you think the rich would quit investing because their taxes went up, you're deluded. They were doing it when their taxes were more than double what they are now and the fact that they are so low now, not our spending, is the reason we are in trouble.
 
 
+22 # brux 2012-11-16 23:29
Reich is always on top of the important issue, with clear, concise information. I want this guy as President, he is brilliant, a good thinker, a good writer and a moral good guy!

Tax capital gains the same as regular income! Too bad it seems like most Americans don't know what a capital gain is.
 
 
+23 # Wyntergreen 2012-11-17 00:18
I really think the President needs to spread the word that this is essential for the good of the Nation. But more than that, it will make this a better country for ALL. Including the rich. Give it a popular and positive spin so that the rich will be ashamed NOT to help more.
 
 
+7 # JJM 2012-11-17 00:26
The Republican's corporate sponsors will never let that happen. But don't worry, the way in which the GOP has still failed to learn its lesson of not alienating large swaths of the electorate is still going strong so it may be at least one more election cycle but we'll get there yet. I predict the compromise will simply be to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 10% - Obama can claim a victory on that and the GOP can go back to their sponsors and say they saved them their subsidies and capital gains, they even get to throw in that Obama "raised" taxes (very good rhetoric for midterms). Not to mention that the military budget still remains intact. Even when we win we lose.
 
 
+15 # grouchy 2012-11-17 01:19
A very simple question we should as is WHY SHOULD THE 1% NOT PAY THE SAME TAX THAT WE DO! Then sit back and listen to the B.S. rationalization s they will give--then blow these lies out of the water with some very loud truths! It's time for this scam game to stop!
 
 
-4 # patriot9878 2012-11-18 15:39
I am rich and pay no taxes, because we provide you losers with jobs so you pay taxes fo rus. If not for us you would not have a job and you would starve. We wo't do anything unless we take your money
 
 
+2 # bingers 2012-11-20 08:28
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Profits are taxed. That is why the right wing is having their hissy fit about "small businesses" that make over $250,000 a year.



Damn few small business owners make $250,000. Something like 2-3% do.Quoting patriot9878:
I am rich and pay no taxes, because we provide you losers with jobs so you pay taxes fo rus. If not for us you would not have a job and you would starve. We wo't do anything unless we take your money


I assume this is tongue in cheek?
 
 
+1 # brux 2013-03-30 10:22
Rich, really, care to provide me with a description of the amount of source of your income and I'll tell you where you are wrong. Funny such a rich guy would spend time here on RSN speaking to people who probably aren't listening ... or are you just a troll trying to annoy people?
 
 
0 # flippancy 2013-03-30 19:42
Quoting patriot9878:
I am rich and pay no taxes, because we provide you losers with jobs so you pay taxes fo rus. If not for us you would not have a job and you would starve. We wo't do anything unless we take your money



I'm guessing that was sarcasm?
 
 
+1 # brux 2013-03-30 10:20
Go back to the origins of tax and you will have your answer.

Your superficial and simplistic reasoning always seems to get a lot of support at first, but for every person in America, the people that make less than them should pay lesser percentage rate tax than they do, and the person who makes more than them should pay a greater percentage rate tax than they do.

In my opinion the country would run much better too if the top rate and the highest dollar incomes was set at or above 66% so that for above some level like 10 million dollars, indexed to inflation, 2 dollars should go to the country for every one dollar the person makes. under that they pay the same rate as everyone else for whatever bracket they are in.

This would prevent the country being taken over by oligarchs like Russia has and we maybe have.
 
 
+19 # tapelt 2012-11-17 01:32
"Capital gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income."

Yes! This is something I have been saying for a long time, although I would consider an exception for IPO's bought on opening day and held for at least five years. That kind of thing creates jobs. But when Warren Buffet buys 10 million shares of Coca Cola or whatever, that does not create jobs. Neither does using the capital gains rate on the salary for the manager of a hedge fund.
 
 
+1 # ghostperson 2013-03-30 17:29
Money is money whether salary or dividends which is nothing more than money making money.

What is insane is that Social Security doesn't consider unearned income like earned income for certain programs?

The rich get richer and stay there and the rest of us get the finger.
 
 
-14 # patriot9878 2012-11-17 01:45
The taxes should be 10% across the board. It doesn't make sense not to. The rich won't have so much in their foundations. Now you got billionaires giving away their money. They can put their money in trust funds and of course they tie up all their money. Most rich people don't have any money laying around. They have it tied up in land and business, but it's what they are able to do, because they have so much money. That will not change. Because if you are rich and you can save 100 million a year by moving to another country you will do it. But it should piss people off when they hear someone is buyinng another company for 20 billion. Who needs that much money. The rich can afford to pay for the best advice and they'll just find a way around it, because the congress has the final say. WHen will people learn the prez has no power if they can override anything he vetoes. So congress will decide and most people in the congress are rich. I would like to see the people be able to decide before we go to war and how much everyone pays in taxes.
 
 
+13 # mdhome 2012-11-17 10:20
Way back in the 50s the tax rate for millionaires was 90% and they did NOT move out of the country, I think they will stay where they are at a 40% rate.
 
 
+4 # RLF 2012-11-17 15:47
Who needs a flat tax when you have a defacto flat tax...romney at 14%??? I think people should pay taxes on every cent that goes to their health insurance and when the get the bills, they will freak and then we will have REAL health reform. I'm tired of paying tax on every penny for health care as a self employed person when corporate slaves pay on only half.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-11-20 08:30
The flat tax is the dumbest and most regressive tax ever.

We really need to go back to the progressive income tax with ALL forms of income taxed at the same rate. If not, then capital gains should carry the highest rate, not the lowest.
 
 
+1 # brux 2013-03-30 16:28
Again, totally agree ... my one article on RSN makes this point ... we do not have a progressive tax, we have a hidden regressive tax, and taxing billionaires at the same rate as millionaires is a secret way of aligning millionaire's interests with the billionaires politically ... want to know why so many do not vote their apparent interests in elections ... that is the reason.
 
 
0 # flippancy 2013-03-30 19:48
The flat tax is utterly regressive and unfair. When David Koch has to spend 45% of his totasl income to pay his mortgage on his only house and 35% of his income to eat, than a flat tax might make sense. But we do have one case of a flat tax, social security, but only the poor and middle class pay the whole 2% Some of the rich are done paying SS in the first hour or two of their working year. There should be NO cap on it. If you're a hedge fund manager making a billion a year you shoul;d pay your fair share, 20 million a year.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-03-30 23:46
> If you're a hedge fund manager making a billion a year you shoul;d pay your fair share, 20 million a year.

That's a 2% tax rate .... are you sure that's what you wanted to say?
 
 
-8 # patriot9878 2012-11-17 01:54
Another thing the wealhty don't invest n the stock market. The stock market is boasted by poor Americans who put money in a 401K that is the biggest joke there has ever been. You put your money in a 401K but you can't take the money out early or you are penalized and they do allow you to borrow your own money and charge you interest. IF you are lucky if you do retire or pull your money out when stocks have risen you got money, but if you pull it out when they have fallen a lot you might end up with nothing. It's a con game don't put your money in a 401K Just put it in the bank. Don't play that con game. The poor bankroll the stock market but unlike the rich they can't take their profits. It's so nice of them that little nest egg your money, but if the stock fall or the markets crash you got nothing.
 
 
-13 # patriot9878 2012-11-17 01:58
We can make the world a better place but first we have to see more violence than anyone has ever seen. With Oklahoma City, Waco and 9/11 means they have increased the attacks. Are we supposed to sit back and do nothing? Are they finally going to say oh, we give up you people just kept marching along and we can't take it anymore. We got you to fight in wars killing millions and then we killed 70 million with communism. Now you have stopped taking your vaccines and quit eating junk and you don't want to eat GM food. So we give up. We don't have anymore tricks up our sleeves. SO you win
 
 
+11 # mdhome 2012-11-17 10:22
Nonsense,word salad, and crazy talk.
 
 
+15 # bingers 2012-11-17 06:53
Our spending is the 2nd lowest in the free world. Spending is NOT the problem, under taxation of the rich is nearly 100% of the problem. At least 90% of the solution should be higher taxes on the rich, the other 10% should be an end to corporate welfare.
 
 
-2 # patriot9878 2012-11-18 17:02
THey say it wouldn't make any difference, but there are 9,000 publically traded companies and millions of non-public companies. So I think they would put a dent into it anyway. The fortune 500 companies have to profit at least 10 billion per company. If they were taxed 10& that is 500 billion in taxes. That would do a lot. Now figure that is 5 trillion in ten years. Who are they kidding. Now take the number of smaller companies would be 8,500 and let's say on average they each profited 500 million, That woould mean another 425 billion. That would be 925 billion a year. Now figure the one millon other companies that profit 10 million and comnes to a trillion and you got well over a trillion they could collect from these rich elite that they haven't collected for a hundred years. Who are they fooling? Over a trillion that would really take some of the burden off the taxpayers. \
Plus you figure they take about 360 billion the government gives away of your money that goes right into the pockets of the fat cats. The 650 billiom they spend on the military and you're talking over 2 trillion the government wastes every year. Kind of makes you mad doesn't it? But don't go off half cocked and head to Washington to hunt down people. They didn't know what they were doing. The accountants didn't tell them.
 
 
+1 # brux 2013-03-30 16:25
I totally agree with you, we grow corrupt fascists, given them tons of money, allow them to take over the government and then take over other countries ... whose liberty, freedom or pursuit of happiness benefits from that, and why is our government not looking at that question ?
 
 
+14 # dick 2012-11-17 07:59
GRADUATED, Progressive tax on capital gains. Progressive, not regressive, taxes wherever possible. Tell Elizabeth W., et al.
 
 
+17 # bingers 2012-11-17 09:12
Better yet, revert to the tax schedule of the Eisenhower or Kennedy years, with the graduated income tax coupled with the closure of nearly all loopholes. Closing the loopholes was the reason lowering the top marginal rate from Ike's 91% to JFKs 70% with a corresponding increase in government income occurred. Republicans like you to think that that is proof that lowering the rate causes increased revenue. However, the fact is that it increased the effective tax rate on the rich. In that respect JFK was like FDR, a traitor to his class. Compare that to Romney whose policies would have caused him to have a near zero tax rate and the country would have gone the way of Greece.
 
 
+12 # Texas Aggie 2012-11-17 10:08
While the cliche of going the way of Greece has been overworked, in this case it is appropriate. Greece's main problem was the rich avoiding paying their taxes which meant that there wasn't sufficient income to pay for government services. Greece's expenditures were only middle of the road compared to other European Community countries, but their income was almost last. The problem wasn't their expenditures, but rather their lack of income because of tax avoidance by the wealthy. We dodged that bullet when Romney went down to defeat.
 
 
-28 # PastorEd 2012-11-17 09:20
OK, the Dems won. Re-distribution is about to proliferate. It's only fair that the one's who voted for the re-distribution and graduated income tax should disburse 50% of their personal wealth first.
 
 
+11 # Tje_Chiwara 2012-11-17 10:07
Quoting PastorEd:
OK, the Dems won. Re-distribution is about to proliferate. It's only fair that the one's who voted for the re-distribution and graduated income tax should disburse 50% of their personal wealth first.


Ah, what Choir are you preaching to, Pastor? All those that have received the redistributed monies for the last 20 years? Whose income progressed way past any rational level while the ordinary working bum lost more and more of his wages to support their bonuses, leverage buyouts, manipulated profit-taking?

I guess re-distribution may be correct, IF you realize that past distribution of our country's wealth, expecially since the Bush Tax Cuts, has been inequitable, unfair, and unsustainable. It is entirely appropriate to re-distribute the ill-gotten gains of the connected, handout-getting wealthy to those that really expanded our country's economy.

Your notion of fairness is that the victims should pay the criminals to encourage them to subsequently pay their fair share. Actually we have kept trying that . . . they just don't seem to get the incentive, and have made that transfer their own sense of entitlement!

Preach again Pastor . . . explain why the unabashed takers should expect further payment and untaxed inheritance from the makers . . .
 
 
+5 # PGreen 2012-11-17 13:27
I'm not sure where you get the 50% figure when the highest tax bracket is 38%. Care to explain?
The way progressive tax brackets work is that EVERYone's income that falls within each bracket is taxed accordingly. Thus a man who earns $10,000.00/year might pay 10% in taxes; likewise a man earning 1 million pays 10% ON THE FIRST $10,000.00 of his income. Further income is taxed at progressively higher rates according to the bracket it falls into. (Minus loopholes, of course.) In the 1950's, the period of greatest economic growth in US history, (which at the time went mostly to the middle-class,) the highest bracket was aprx. 90%.
Most people wish they earned enough to be taxed at the higher rates. I'd happily take another $50,000.00 in income, even if it meant that I'd only get 60% of it-- or even only 10%. It wouldn't change the rates that apply to my current income. It's all additional.
I'm glad to read that you advocate the principle of fairness and assume that this means you favor a fairer distribution of income and wealth. Or do you have another definition of the term?
 
 
+1 # ghostperson 2012-11-19 23:44
Didn't we already in Tarp funds to the Wolves of Wall Street, to Big Oil in subsidies on the public domain; in free loans to the Wolves/debtors turn around and use to become creditors by buying Treasury securities earning 2.25% off of money they borrow from us and the special tax treatment (tax expenditures) given hedge fund managers?
 
 
+13 # RickMaart 2012-11-17 10:07
Why not a sales tax on stock buying and transfers? What makes a stock or bond sale different from buying a car or some other hard good?
 
 
0 # patriot9878 2012-11-18 16:42
Quoting RickMaart:
Why not a sales tax on stock buying and transfers? What makes a stock or bond sale different from buying a car or some other hard good?

Stock buying should be limited selling stocks to raise capital and when you have finished building the company, then they pay off the stock holders and the stocks are liquidated. Commodity buying should be limited to people who use the commodity. That was the intended purpose to begin with. You would need a commodity in the future and you would want to lock in a price. If you sold the commodity you would want to cover if the price dropped too low. Today someone can manipulate the markets by buying more and more contracts raising the price of a commodity then they could sell that commodity for a profit. It's easy to track criminals like the 9/11 culprits who bought gold stocks and shorted the airlines, because they knew the 9/11 attacks were coming and they knew which way the markets would move. Looks like it would be easy to arrest the FBI and CIA agents who did this, but so far nothing.
 
 
+4 # WallStWallFlowerGirl 2012-11-17 13:14
Tax loopholes, tax havens, subsidies- all the perks WE the tax payers GIVE the suits on the Hill for their supposedly being "public servants" (HA!)- and all their friends in the Millionaires Club, get more FREE RIDES than any middle-class/wo rking poor citizen could ever fathom.

O'Reily, Hannity, etc- talk about "white minority" can cry me a river into a box of Kleenex, once made in America. Hard-working Americans who pay bills, follow the law & buy the goods made in China the Mitts of America profit obscenely by, pay more taxes than a decade of Richy Rich's off-shore accounts.

Mitt Rmoney kept secret his tax returns for a reason- and now he's crying that Obama won because he promised the 47 percent of entitlement seekers, gifts. Go sulk in one of your car garages Rmoney. Hypocrisy needs to be called-out daily, and not just in here.

When FAUX news, Ms. Kelly, asked Rove if he was just "doing math Republicans do to make themselves feel better," the heaven's of hope opened up... It was the single greatest moment on FAUX- proving that it can be done. The avarice driven, men of malfeasance (and women), can be made to confront egregious, unethical, hypocritical and completely ludicrous behavior. I know there are people w/the balls to do it; it's our job to put the pressure on, because nothing moves a mountain like people waking up to the reality that they've been punked.
 
 
+2 # phantomww 2012-11-17 23:45
Just curious what everyone thinks the rich will do if the taxes go up on cap gains? You do realize that if the tax goes to 30% or whatever that when they sell their losers that they will be getting a 30% tax DEDUCTION. And what do you do if they decide to stop investing in stocks but buy Muni-bonds instead which are tax free regardless of tax bracket? They could just decide to not sell the stocks that go up and thus not have any cap gains so no tax. Do you all really believe that they will just sit around and pay the tax or do you think they will have their brilliant accountants and tax lawyers find lots of loop holes? Just curious.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-11-18 15:54
Quoting phantomww:
Just curious what everyone thinks the rich will do if the taxes go up on cap gains? You do realize that if the tax goes to 30% or whatever that when they sell their losers that they will be getting a 30% tax DEDUCTION. And what do you do if they decide to stop investing in stocks but buy Muni-bonds instead which are tax free regardless of tax bracket? They could just decide to not sell the stocks that go up and thus not have any cap gains so no tax. Do you all really believe that they will just sit around and pay the tax or do you think they will have their brilliant accountants and tax lawyers find lots of loop holes? Just curious.


Buying munis would do what they've refused to do for decades, help fix the infrastructure.
 
 
0 # phantomww 2012-11-18 21:41
so you are willing to let them have millions of dollars in tax free earnings if they buy munis? So if Romney would put all of his investments in munis and his tax rate would be zero instead of the roughly 14% then you would be fine with that?
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-11-20 08:39
Quoting phantomww:
so you are willing to let them have millions of dollars in tax free earnings if they buy munis? So if Romney would put all of his investments in munis and his tax rate would be zero instead of the roughly 14% then you would be fine with that?


Yes, but they would be working for the people and would create jobs and a better economy, not raping the economy as they are doing now. When the Romneys of the world ship the jobs overseas they don't pay taxes on their overseas profits and they slash the tax base by throwing millions of people out of work.

In case you hadn't noticed, the infrastructure id crumbling and Republican caused help for states and municipalities is the lowest it's ever been.

If Romney pays no taxes, but his money helps the economy I don't mind. Right now he pays much less than you do and damages the economy.
 
 
+2 # EGH 2012-11-18 14:46
Why is it so difficult to come to an agreement on having the Bush tax cuts expire? We have recent experience with which to compare the merits and demerits of this action. The 'rich' has had over ten years to stimulate jobs which is the argument in favor of extending the tax cuts. Where are the jobs attributable to actions of beneficiaries of these cuts? Contrast this with the Clinton years in which we experienced prosperity at the higher tax rates.
So far as finding ways in which to close the tax loopholes, one has only to look at the Romney tax avoidance strategies as a road map to the loopholes.
 
 
-3 # patriot9878 2012-11-18 15:22
I feel we need to get rid of the stock market. I advise everyone don't be a fool and don't even think of 401K. All they are is mutual funds and mutual funds are just stocks. So your money goes up and down according to the stock market. If you get out at the wrong time you are screwed. It's your money in the thing, but you can't just take it out like the rich. It has to stay there for 40 years. Sure they'll loan you your own money with interest and that is nice of them. Just put your money in bonds or CDs.. The stock market is carried by the sheeple who work in the factories. You are stupid for doing it. I bet a lot fo people lost their ass the last few years.
 
 
-3 # patriot9878 2012-11-18 15:27
People who come in here and type something so eloquently and worded just right will not be in the revolution. That fact is stock markets and commodity markets are nothing but pyramid schemes. IF you sell stocks and your conpanies has risen to the level you desire or you have built the company and then the stocks should pay out and the stocks are no more, But when stocks go up and down they are just moving money around. They aren't making any money. The commodity marekts are what control how much we pay for our fuel and food. Based solely on speculation. It pays someone who has cattle or hogs to buy and go long and raise the price of their livestock goes up. Plus the pros use tricks like shake outs to get out the weak players.
 
 
-3 # patriot9878 2012-11-18 15:34
Stocks and commodities must be a kosher creation. Only crooked people would create such nonsense. Stock markets jacked up by the mutual funds the money stolen from tactory workers and anyone dumb enough to hold a job. I bought a country store and restaurant. So I can't be fired a lot of people are going to be without a job soon and they'll be 60 and they can kiss their retirement goodbye and they are dumb as stump and where they going to work? Factory workers need a factory and all that noise. I try to help them out, but some are just too stupid to pur piss out of a booat
 
 
0 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 08:57
Quoting patriot9878:
I am rich and pay no taxes, because we provide you losers with jobs so you pay taxes fo rus. If not for us you would not have a job and you would starve. We wo't do anything unless we take your money

The poor only need food, clothing and shelter. We can grow our own food and hunt and fish. We can make our own clothes and we can build our own homes. We don't need your goofy jobs that tax us how about 50% when someone makes $1,500 a week. I know we worked Dupont in 1984 and we made $12 an hour and we worked double shifts and they would take $700 out of our $1,400 for all taxes. So talk about tax percentages you rich pay. The poo get hammered for labor they aren't even suppose to pay.
IF the poor said screw it and just became farmers, painters and carpenters, then who would do the dirty work for the rich? You rich need th poor people. We don't need you and the hundreds of billions of dollars you waste and then line your own pockets.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-03-30 09:43
Are you dreaming, no one can grow food, hunt or fish without sufficient access to land or infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc.

It's true taxes were not meant to be levied on working people.

The poor and middle class just need the rich to quit enslaving them and taking their lives, either literally or figuratively. Everyone rich or poor should have the right to live a human life and not be used as a machine.
 
 
0 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 09:01
Quoting bingers:
Our spending is the 2nd lowest in the free world. Spending is NOT the problem, under taxation of the rich is nearly 100% of the problem. At least 90% of the solution should be higher taxes on the rich, the other 10% should be an end to corporate welfare.



The thing is the rich have ways of hiding money. If you taxed them higher they can move their company to Mexico. They can live in another country. Poor people don't have that option. Just like some states have no state income tax so why doesn't everyone just go live there? I mean it might be 25 to 30 a week.
 
 
0 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 10:37
Quoting brux:
Are you dreaming, no one can grow food, hunt or fish without sufficient access to land or infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc.

It's true taxes were not meant to be levied on working people.

The poor and middle class just need the rich to quit enslaving them and taking their lives, either literally or figuratively. Everyone rich or poor should have the right to live a human life and not be used as a machine.

Exactly cities are like gold to the rich. Those city people can't farm or grow chickens or rabbits and they can grow produce. They can't just pick veggies for a farmer. They can't catch fish and sell. Those city people need the factories, hotels, and restaurants to provide them money.
I live in the marsh and eat muskrats, oysters, clams, fish and crabs. I ate so many oysters the other day I coudl hardly walk. You know what the cost was zero. Sometimes I eat crabs till I'm sick of them. I eat fresh veggies when they come off and I can the rest. I wish I had a lady friend to share this and the beach is one hour away. I feel sorry for people who live in Baltimore and all that processed junk and pollution.
 
 
-1 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 10:41
What we really need is to get the control of the media out of the kosher boy's hands. We need to go to a system where the people vote on any issue. If it's national we all vote and local the locals vote. The politicians don't have the final say. If we do this the bankers and the corporations acan't control us anymore.
When we have events like Waco, Oklahoma City and 9/11 and not one politician goes after the BATF or even mentions anything about them, then we are being controlled and we can talk till we are blue in the face.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-03-30 16:22
> kosher boy's

Hardly, what we really need is progressive that are not just jerk racists and anti-semites. Kick these loses out of any progressive organization and you might see some progress.
 
 
-1 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 17:05
The Jews use everyone against everyone else. The scary thing the Jews have 100 times more power in this country than they had in Germany and Russia and you see what they did there. Kosher could be anyone. Anyone could be a Christian or a Jew. I mean it's only about relition. Not about race
 
 
+1 # ghostperson 2013-03-30 17:25
You have confirmed my worst fears,patriot9878.

The only thing I knew about Jews growing up was that Jesus was one and that they went to "church" in Tulsa on Saturday.

Upon entry into the larger world, I met Asians, Jews and myriad populations previously unknown to me.

Not being Jewish and raised in the Bible Belt, I think our biggest threat are arrogant, white male WASPS who are frightened about losing their power perch and need to put a boot heel on the neck of the masses to protect their self-exalted perch. Those guys put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of humanity.

United we stand, divided we fall. There is room enough for all of us on this planet.

Patriot 9878: GET A GRIP, YOU ARE COMING UNFRAYED AT THE SEAMS!!! (Emphasis Intentional).
 
 
+1 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 23:30
Quoting bingers:
Quoting phantomww:
Just curious what everyone thinks the rich will do if the taxes go up on cap gains? You do realize that if the tax goes to 30% or whatever that when they sell their losers that they will be getting a 30% tax DEDUCTION. And what do you do if they decide to stop investing in stocks but buy Muni-bonds instead which are tax free regardless of tax bracket? They could just decide to not sell the stocks that go up and thus not have any cap gains so no tax. Do you all really believe that they will just sit around and pay the tax or do you think they will have their brilliant accountants and tax lawyers find lots of loop holes? Just curious.


Buying munis would do what they've refused to do for decades, help fix the infrastructure.

The rich create foundations and trust funds and they really thank all the workers who make this possible. What would the rich have if the poor just bought a piece of ground. Grew their own food and made their own clothes and didn't work for the rich? What would the rich do? IF people would just think the rich need the poor. If all the rich were to get on a rocket and fly to the moon the world would be a better place.
 
 
0 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 17:09
We need to abolish the stock markets. They only take cash from many and give to the rich. Commodities should be abolished, because their purpose was for farmers and corporations to be able to hedge their prices they paid, but if I have no use in a commodity and I have a trillion dollars I can keep buying gas futures and cause the price to rise for everyone and could tank the economy. The stock market is a pyramid scheme and the comooodity markets are nothing but speculators causing commodities to rise and fall and the markets go haywire
 
 
0 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 17:11
Quoting brux:
> kosher boy's

Hardly, what we really need is progressive that are not just jerk racists and anti-semites. Kick these loses out of any progressive organization and you might see some progress.


IF I say the Jews it means religion. Jews are not a race. I can say Jews or can I say synagogue worsippers? Can I say Christians are manipulating the markets? ISn't being Jewish only about religion?
 
 
+1 # patriot9878 2013-03-30 17:13
We have talked about this stuff for hundreds of years. We know what we must do and that is overthrow this government and hang the politicians and replace them with farmers and lumber jacks and they serve a year. No more career politicians. Career politicians kiss too much arse to keep their cushy job
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN