The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket

By
Tuesday, September 07, 2010 at 1:42 pm

Peter Orszag’s New York Times opinion piece has set off a flurry of discussion about whether to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and how the political fight over the Bush tax cuts might play out this fall. Policymakers’ ultimate goal is to keep the recovery going while ensuring tax revenue helps ease the deficit. A number of options are on the table, but one choice that might be popular and effective has been left out — creating a new tax bracket for very high-income earners.

Democrats could, for instance, offer to create a new tax bracket for the top one percent of earners (those making more than about $410,000) or for any earners making more than $1 million. That tax bracket could pay the top marginal rate before the tax cuts, 39.6 percent, or some rate between the current 35 percent and 39.6 percent in 2011 and 2012. Then, two years from now, Democrats could end the Bush-era tax cuts for all families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, bringing that bracket up to 39.6 percent and pushing taxes on the highest earners up again.

Why would this be a good idea? Politically, it seems workable, since Americans by and large want to soak the rich to help pay down the debt. For the past 20 years, the top income tax bracket has started around $370,000, adjusted for inflation, and top marginal tax rate has stayed between 35 and 39.6 percent. But since the mid-1990s, the richest have gotten richer, earning a higher and higher share of all income while paying the same income tax rate as more moderate-income workers.

The Tax Foundation notes: “[B]etween 2000 and 2007, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 50 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 29 percent.” And the total proportion of taxes paid by very wealthy Americans has declined, as they earn more and more from investment vehicles on which they pay capital gains, rather than income, taxes. The income tax is, of course, progressive. But it could be more so.

Moreover, America has had tax brackets hitting very high-income workers before. In the 1970s, for instance, the top tax bracket included workers making more than $500,000 a year, and the top rate was higher. (All dollar amounts in this graph are given in 2010 dollars, so there is no skew due to inflation.)

Indeed, until 1973, the top bracket hit workers making an inflation-adjusted $1 million per year.

Follow Annie Lowrey on Twitter


Comments

193 Comments

Business Home Internet Marketing Opportunity | business to business marketing
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington IndependentAlso on this blogInternet Marketing Strategies For Explosive Network Marketing Online- Part 2: Lead Generation & ListbuildingImportant Marketing Methods For Your Business Home Internet Marketing OnlineWhat Are The Most Profitable Markets Online?Beginner’s Guide to Affiliate Marketing MethodsAffiliate Marketing For the Beginner – 5 Sure-Fire Money Making Tips Posted in Marketing Online | Tags: Amount Of Time, Bankruptcy, Better Management, Better Time Management, business, Business Internet Marketing, Business Opportunity, cost, Cost Effectiveness, extra, Extra Income, Home Business Internet, Home Business Internet Marketing, Home Internet, Impressive Tool, income, internet, Internet Users, Job, Manpower, Marketing Opportunity, Money, Online Marketing, Pauline, people, Personal Presence, Remaining Time, Skilled Professionals, thing [...]


The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent « Tax explained to you.
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

[...] the original post here: The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent Related Posts:End 15% Tax Bracket | Auto Boom InfoWhy the IRS Can't Replace the FEC « The [...]


Necessity of Tax Planning, Income Tax Preparation Services | car donation tax
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Make Money Online: Opportunities For Full-Time Income | Making Money Ideas
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent « Best Tax Practice
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

[...] this article: The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent Related Posts:End 15% Tax Bracket | Auto Boom InfoIncome Tax Bracket Calculator for 2009, 2010 | [...]


In a World of Overdiagnosed Attention Deficit, Finding a Real Test That Will Prove It | Google Hot Trends
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

[...] consumers buy sunglasses, be sure to pay attention to where …Related posts on caseThe Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent who had heard of ADHD, 78% believed it to be a "real The International Consensus Statement on [...]


Score Board
Trackback posted September 7, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

Youzhny slows Spain’s US Open reign (AP)…

I found your entry interesting to I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…


The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent | Independent
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

[...] is the original post: The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent Tags: bush, extend-tax, fall, fight-over, over-the-bush, tax-cuts, the-political, times-, [...]


eb
Comment posted September 7, 2010 @ 6:52 pm

Cross-posted from Kevin Drum's place…

If you're serious about equitable redistribution, suggest you consider an annual wealth tax as well as a confiscatory inheritance tax. I'd suggest a sliding scale for the former – say 0.1% per annum on holdings over $10 million, realized or not, rising to 1% on everything over $100 million and 10% annually on everything over $1 billion. For the latter, a 100% tax on estates in excess of, say, $10 million should do.

If you're serious. And if those affected would rather move to Abu Dhabi – let them, and good riddance.


The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket North Capitol Street
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

[...] View full post on The Washington Independent [...]


How can I refinance my home if I owe more than it is worth? | credit
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


The Case For More Tax Brackets North Capitol Street
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

[...] Annie Lowrey continues her campaign for a higher tax bracket or two: [...]


Tax Matters » The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

[...] more from the original source: The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent Related Posts:tax calculator bracketLight This City » Blog Archive » Average Income Tax Rate [...]


Download Software » Blog Archive » Download Software | How To Avoid Making Mistakes And To Make Income On Stock Market
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Nice Automate Income photos | Home Based Business Traffic Solution
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 9:52 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Former Cleveland Crunch president Paul Garofolo charged with tax fraud North Capitol Street
Pingback posted September 7, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Limited Benefit Seen in Tax Plan North Capitol Street
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 12:10 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Can You Smell What Obama’s Cooking? North Capitol Street
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 12:59 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


World stocks fall amid renewed Europe bank worries | hand bag shopping
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 2:55 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


I’m playing fable 2 on the xbox 360 and wondering how properties and renting worked? | business answers
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 2:57 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Goshdarn
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 2:13 am

Problem with your point regarding rich paying lower rates due to investment income is that this income in many cases has already been taxed at the corporate level.

(People pay all taxes even if a business legally remits it.)

You can be all for higher taxes on high-income people, but you should be honest in the debate.


Forex Autopilot Trading System Review | Forex For Dummies
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 3:28 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


No Monkey Business…Over 100 Ways To Make Money Easily! – Effective - Affordable Software Solutions
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 8:00 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Make Money Online | barracuda spam appliance
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:12 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


What sites can I make money online for free without paying? | Affiliate Marketing for Beginners
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 10:18 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Cool Automate Income images | Xonop
Pingback posted September 8, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Cevale
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

There is NO case for a millionaire tax break. Stop trying to create one!


jdl51
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

A capital gain on your personal stock investments is your capital gain. What the corporation pays in taxes has nothing to do with it.


jdl51
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

A capital gain on your personal stock investments is your capital gain. What the corporation pays in taxes has nothing to do with it.


Csuciadams
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

That is ridiculous to say. We had it in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. At that time we had a much more reasonable income gap. You are probably a person who does not donate much. Why don't you go buy another refrigerator for you bonus room…


Csuciadams
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

That is ridiculous to say. We had it in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. At that time we had a much more reasonable income gap. You are probably a person who does not donate much. Why don't you go buy another refrigerator for you bonus room…


guest
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

The Citizen's United case said corporations are to be viewed as people. People pay taxes. Ergo, corporations should pay taxes. The End.


guest
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

The Citizen's United case said corporations are to be viewed as people. People pay taxes. Ergo, corporations should pay taxes. The End.


Corey Lynn
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

Why do we tax labor more than capital? Making money from money is consistently taxed at a lower rate than working for a wage. Not to mention those people earning 300K pay the same in FICA and Medicare as someone earning 90K and if they earned that 300K through investments they don't pay FICA and Medicare.


Corey Lynn
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

Why do we tax labor more than capital? Making money from money is consistently taxed at a lower rate than working for a wage. Not to mention those people earning 300K pay the same in FICA and Medicare as someone earning 90K and if they earned that 300K through investments they don't pay FICA and Medicare.


Csuciadams
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:32 pm

I like your numbers, they are small and reasonable. The old rich would not necessarily be affected by income taxes, we need a wealth tax. When did it become cool to have more than you need? I thought we were a country based on morality and community.


Csuciadams
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:32 pm

I like your numbers, they are small and reasonable. The old rich would not necessarily be affected by income taxes, we need a wealth tax. When did it become cool to have more than you need? I thought we were a country based on morality and community.


Ed
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:48 pm

Exactly. This is a meme that has to be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every time there is a suggestion that the nation is bankrupt, or that taxes are too high, yada yada yada, reply thusly: fine, eliminate personal income taxes, eliminate corporate taxes. Instead, immediately institute a wealth tax – the schedule you state is fine. We need to recover the booty that has been looted from the middle class since the 1960's and eliminate greed as the primary motivation for a large percentage of the “movers and shakers.” Meme, rinse, repeat: Wealth Tax. Wealth Tax. Wealth Tax. It'll drive the plutocrats batsh1t crazy!


Prantha
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

You forget (ignore) one thing; the very wealthy take full advantage of TAX DEDUCTIONS (that the middle class cannot.) This is why they always pay less than their actual tax bracket states.

If we eliminate the tax cuts for the very wealthy, the very wealthy will reinvest in property, plant and equipment – and they will hire people – because these expenses are tax deductions. This will benefit the entire country.


gopfail
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

Sure there is. I would say to the millionaires, if you don't like, go live somewhere else. Most of them will stick around because a few thousand bucks isn't worth moving to bermuda, and also America is perhaps the biggest reason they are rich in the first place.


bjwtaylor
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

“has already been taxed at the corporate level.”

So what?


bjwtaylor
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

It has always been cool to have more than you need. The majority want that, and to a degree it is not unreasaonble. Who doesn't want to be comfortable and secure.

Morality and community can exist side by side with reasonably affluent comfort levels. It's the greed of unregulated capitalism and voracious tax policies that turned us into what we have become. Those who have no morality or sense of community don't give a tinker's dam for the rest of the country. It takes government enforcement, e.g. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt and friends to give the country back to the moral.

Excess is what gets ugly. In many countries the peasants would revolt (see France, history of) and take off a head or two here and there. Not here. Here the peasants vote for politicians who give the ultra rich more and more at their own expense.

go figure.


PJR
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

The highest marginal tax rates currently are for middle class wage earners. Most middle class wage earners are in a federal tax bracket of 37 or 40 percent when income and social security taxes are considered, which is larger percentage than the 33 and 35 percent IRS brackets for higher income groups. A return to the pre-Bush rates of 36 and 39.6 percent for these high wage earners would not seem one-bit onerous. Would they prefer that we get rid of the social security earnings cap? (Note: by middle class wage earners here, I'm including a person making roughly $35,000 to $100,000, or two such people who are married; I'm not counting other taxes, and I am including the employer-contribution to social security.)


The Gorn
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

I'm all for it. We used to have a $400,000+ bracket if you look back in the Eisenhower & Kennedy eras. In today's dollars, that's a big number, probably somewhere between $1.5-$2.5M.


forestnfama
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

A very good point……if you don't mind I will forward it forward.


Invest in silver now! The dollar crash and the run for silver | GrantGift.com | US Government Grants for Free!
Pingback posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:40 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


John
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 11:44 pm

What ???? They will hire people under what terms do you guarantee they will hire people!! Oh your the same person that says but dont hire an illegal immigrant or a mexican.

Prantha your in fantasy land and the 9 others that like this.

Wake the f&%&^%K Up.


the boss
Comment posted September 8, 2010 @ 11:47 pm

Wrong Goshdarn you need a proper accountant DUDE!!!!!


JJ
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:23 am

legend is missing from first graph, makes it hard to read when you blow it up without the other one. please add legend.


Rosebud_jenny
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:36 am

Do away with loopholes and deductions for ALL tax brackets and have a flat percentage rate for ALL income levels is what is most fair to everyone. No scale depending on income and no way to avoid paying your percentage!


J.C.Cosgrove
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:44 am

The rich and very rich are not too worried about their taxes.They pass the problem to their tax lawyers and their investment advisors.Life goes on as usual and maybe having to decide the house to live as the seasons change.


Prantha
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:52 am

Steve Forbes tried to do a flat tax of 10% (in the 1970s) with no deductions, but the very rich opposed it. They figured out that they would finally have to pay taxes if they could not use deductions.


Ogemaniac
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:52 am

But…but….but….

If hedge fund managers had to pay higher taxes than their secretaries, they would all throw hissy fits and quit. THEN where would we be? I mean, how can humanity survive without these Herculean, job-and-wealth creating John Galts? Clearly, the markets would grind to a halt, bridges would crumble, and no one would know the formula for Coke if these guys withdrew their valuable services and instead spent their waning days paying people to break windows on even numbered days, and fix them on the odd.


Prantha
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:54 am

Under what terms? Payroll is 100% deductible. (Property, plant and equipment are not, although they can be depreciated.)


Ogemaniac
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:55 am

And what YOU are ignoring is that investors only pay a fraction of the corporate tax. Most is actually borne by the customers, and a portion is borne by the workers. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that investors deserve a special tax break elsewhere in the tax code.

Capital gains should be indexed to inflation, and taxed as normal income.


Prantha
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 1:17 am

BTW – I am half Mexican. (Well, my father was born in Mexico; but I was born in the USA.) And I think your comment had elements of racism in it. That being said, I am a VERY proud American and I have never hired an illegal immigrant.


Ed
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 1:53 am

There is nothing fair about the “flat tax.” The poor or near poor are lucky to have discretionary income to buy a used car so they can be lucky enough to keep working two or three jobs, while the sated and degenerate super-rich spend their discretionary income on mega-yachts. Taking the same portion of each of their discretionary income is beyond stupid, it's immoral. Establish a progressive wealth tax: 0.1% of all your capital assets for millionaires, 1-10% for billionaires – yearly.


Mickdaddy82
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:05 am

The rich own this country. If the Dems tried a shenanigan like this, we would soon find out how much they control us. Almost like what might happen if regular folks found out that UFOs were real. It might not be pretty for any of us.


Joel
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:11 am

It is never fair to charge the wealthy a greater percentage of their income for things that benefit all of us. We should all contribute the same rate, whether it's 20%, 30% or whatever. There's no reason someone making $30,000 should pay 20% of their income in taxes and a millionare pays 50%+. Keep in mind, there's state income taxes, social security, medicare, etc. What is the incentive to produce more if you're going to penalized in the end?


Ed
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:23 am

It is *always* fair to charge the wealthy a greater percentage, always, because a) they can afford it, b) they can take greater advantage of the advantages of this great society (use of public funded airports for their private jets, more use of the highways for their Bentleys) The greatest build-up and achievement of this nation was from the mid-thirties to the late fifties, when the tax rate on Millionaires was over 90%. It's been downhill since then, when the Plutocrats and their dunder/dittoheads started undoing the New Deal. Institute a Wealth Tax. Now.


LaBelleMere
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:23 am

Grow up, it is the top 400 people who 'Earn” one million dollars a day who pay SEVENTEEN PERCENT….that is less than FICA taxes….


LaBelleMere
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:25 am

Pay higher taxes than their secretaries…that is not the issue, the issue is that they are paying ONE/HALF the tax rate that their secretaries are paying…ONE HALF the tax RATE….


LaBelleMere
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:28 am

And don't you forget that those yachts and corporate jets and chaufeurs are “business expenses”…so they are tax deductible….Like that office redecoration that cost 1.2 milllion…


LaBelleMere
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:28 am

And don't you forget that those yachts and corporate jets and chaufeurs are “business expenses”…so they are tax deductible….Like that office redecoration that cost 1.2 milllion…


LA_screenwriter
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:51 am

This has to be the SILLIEST response I've seen yet. Look, I know it's fashionable for the deluded Left to say “Soak the rich! Make them pay! They're too greedy!”, but honestly — just look at the RIDICULOUS argument you're making here.

You said (quote): “They (the rich) take greater advantage of the advantages of this great society…more use of the highways for their Bentleys.”

WHAT??? How the heck is being wealthy and owning a Bentley “taking advantage” of a freakin' ROAD? If you've worked hard and succeeded in life and are now lucky enough to afford a Bentley…or Porsche…or Ferrari…the last time I checked, those type of upper scale cars had (1) a motor and four wheels to propel it along, and (2) seats to carry the passengers inside.

In other words, a supposed “rich” person driving along a highway in a Bentley…or Porsche…or Ferrari…would be using the EXACT SAME “highway resources” as a non-rich person driving along the same highway, in an alternate lane, in their more affordable Volkswagen…or Honda…or Toyota.

Seriously, it's not like the “rich” person who is driving on the highway in his Bentley then has a whole fleet of OTHER Bentleys following behind, like an Air Force fighter formation! As I said, you're so consumed by envy of the rich that now you're just EMBARRASSING yourself with silly arguments like this.

And a 90% tax for becoming a millionaire? Sheesh, only the LAZY LEFT would think that's a good idea. It used to be that a hard working American ASPIRED to becoming a success in life or through his business ventures, to BE a millionaire. Heck, that's what I'm striving for. But why would I WANT to work hard and become a millionaire…if some idiot Democrat is instantly going to show up at my door with his hand out to say “You made $1,000,000? Good for you. Now give me $900,000 of it back.”

The Left SERIOUSLY needs to get a clue about NOT creating disincentives for people to strive to be better or a success in life. Then again, the Left has never met a dollar they can't tax or try to rip out of your hand for more of their failed “social engineering” causes, so why should I be surprised that people like Ed want to see a return of a freakin' 90 PERCENT tax rate?


Jeff
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:59 am

I don't think you understand how tax brackets work. The 90% tax rate was for any money earned beyond $1 million. Even so, nobody is advocating a return to 90%. Most people are talking about going from 36% to 39% FOR THE AMOUNT OVER $1 million.

The right should stop fighting for the millionaires and billionaires who couldn't care less about what happens to everyday people.


Fuckoff
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:03 am

exactly what the fuck do the vultures on wallstreert “produce”???


Ed
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:08 am

Seriously, read some history between those very important Hollywood screenplays. Review how the country ran under those tax rates you ridicule, and what has happened since their repeal. Egalitarianism in our culture has vanished. I grew up on a street where a Janitor lived next to a teacher, next to a dentist, next to a doctor, next to a lawyer. All in the same middle class neighborhood. Would you find that now? No, because the blue collar workers must be relegated to the ghetto, or worse. In this age some of our contributions apparently worth 100's of times more than others. In the 50's the average CEO earned 50x times the new-hire in the mailroom. Now, it's 1000x times that. Obscene. That's what you want to continue?

And, aspire to something more than earning money buster, make your life stand for something, eh? Isn't that what's it's about?


interested party
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:17 am

The “rest of us” have directly and indirectly subsidized the rich through the gov't bail-out. Taxing the richest and cutting middle-income taxes — as Obama has proposed — pays “the rest of us” back. It is appropriate and eminently fair.

Taxation has never been shown to be a disincentive to those who pursue wealth. Name one example.


SamirS
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:35 am

the bailout saved average americans more than rich peoplr. An there would be no need for bailouts, if the average american would be a little smarter and not borrow more than they could pay back. ITs been ths average americans fault the whole time, but the “average american” complains all the time and does very little for this country


zatoichi
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:36 am

Let's look at outcomes.

This rich have really not have had it so well.

The middle class is becoming extinct. Their costs have jumped up substantially in the last 40 years. It used to cost less for housing medical care and education. On top of escalating infrastructure costs, the weight of two wars and expensive entitlements; the middle class is on a lot more pressure than it did in the 60s.

Having the rich pay for many of these additional outlays seems to only sustainable way to effectively take action.

Are the other people who do not think much of tax increases have a coherent notion that these items are unimportant? Are they seriously suggesting that we take it from the already overburdened middle class? Do the detractors for continued (and historic) low tax rates for the filthy rich have any decency?

All open questions, but we do need to do what is needed. Not simply ignoring what is needed and taking care of those who have already benefited from being raised in America, got their start in America and got wealthy in America.

The rich should complain less and step up and act like citizens. But I guess that expecting patriotism from the exceptionally greedy and selfish is a fantasy.


Elmer Fudd
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:48 am

Keep it simple. In 2000, during the Presidential debates, one consistent question, what were you going to do with the projected trillion dollar plus surplus. Bush stated and did exactly what he promised, give the tax money, proportionately back to the people. Gore made some lame pledge to put it in a lockbox for SS & medicare, we laughed. Frankly, the problem is us. We've evolved into a society of viagra and steroids, in need of the quick fix.


Stina
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:56 am

Wow, you're a real piece of shi…err work.

The bailouts went to big banks and in case your memory of just two years ago fails you……most of those failing banks that bet against their own customers investments that they recommended so they could collect the insurance on them when they failed….those guys…..they ended up giving away BILLIONS in 'bonuses'. to that top 1%

I hope you lose your job to a slave labor factory in india or china.

Take a look at flex rate mortgages again and post on the internet after you've educated yourself.


Mark
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:56 am

There are people who think it unfair to have progressive tax rates, but I cannot agree with the premise of their argument. The premise seems to be that it is totally fair that a CEO can 250 or 300 times the annual wage of the average worker at a given company. From my viewpoint, I don't think it is fair. It is a pervertion of compensation levels. And since the amount of compensation rained down on top executives is fundamentally unfair from the get-go, then such extremely high-earning individuals should be expected to pay progressively higher rates in taxes. It is the only way that the rest of society can claw back its fair share of the economic spoils. The whole economic systems is rigged so that executives keep almost all of the increased profits from productivity growth to themselves in the form of excessive compensation. People further down the ladder- the average Joe, if you will- haven't been able to count on rising incomes, despite that fact that they are producing more and more. At some point, this does become an undeniable ethical question: If an entire organization, working together, becomes progressively more productive, is it right that only a relative few people at the very top increse their own finacial rewards, while keeping their subordinates' compensation stagnant …for roughly 3 decades on end? This, my friends, is why progressive taxes are necessary.


Elmer Fudd
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:57 am

As one successful “blithering liberal” once said, “last year I earned $1 million dollars and collectively I paid $400,000 in Fed, State & local taxes. The audience moaned and then the liberal stated, “do you think I had a difficult time living on $600,000?” Point made!!


LA_screenwriter
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:59 am

>> The 90% tax rate was for any money earned beyond $1 million.

I understood that, but now you're still proving my point. So, basically what the Left is saying is that NO ONE should ever make MORE than a million. The Left wants to literally SET that as the financial cap you can reach — at which point the government will step in and play Robin Hood, taking and spreading your hard earned money around.

Because once you hit $1 million…as you noted…everything after that point would then have a 90% tax rate. So if I made $2 million here in Hollywood, you're saying I should essentially give you $400,000 of the first million I made (at a 39 to 40% tax rate) which means I only get to keep $600,000 of my money. Which in turn means I only get to keep a bit more than HALF of what I actually made.

But even WORSE, you're then saying if I officially cross the $1 million threshold, I should then fork over 90%. So, if I was a big success and actually made a second million — as I said — those on the left would want $900,000 of it back. Sorry, but that's flat out INSANE.

>> Even so, nobody is advocating a return to 90%.

Actually, Ed is — which is the reason I replied. And there are other liberal commentators and bloggers and politicians who do think like Ed as well, who have likewise stated their belief that we should return to an ultra hefty “millionaires tax rate”

And as I said above — on pure principle — I think that's ridiculous AND it's ultimately a emotional disincentive for anyone to ever really work hard or to try and create a business or create something of value. Speaking as an Independent (which is what I am), the American way of life should subscribe to an attitude that “the sky's the limit” — where people can be as rich and successful as their dreams and ambition will take them — rather than the classic whiny baby “spread the wealth” Liberal attitude of “I'VE decided that you've made enough…that you don't need any more…so hand over your money to me.”


ralphee
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 4:00 am

90000 a year still equals just under 1800 a week after tax i could live with that, that rich elite use far more resources maintaining their lifestyles and thats the real cost here the drain on resources and this belief that more/bigger is better has to change. at a certain point more money wont make you any happier it just becomes about bragging rigths


LA_screenwriter
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 4:23 am

>> In the 50's the average CEO earned 50x times the new-hire in the mailroom. Now, it's 1000x times that. Obscene. That's what you want to continue?

That's the business of the COMPANY to decide, NOT YOU. If the Board of Directors… or stockholders in a company… are morons and decide they want to throw a zillion dollars at a particular exec because they think he's worth it, that's for THEM to decide. And if you don't like it as a worker in the company, then you're free to leave and work elsewhere. Or if you don't like it as a stockholder, you're free to campaign for a change or to cast a stock vote for the changes you want to see.

But if I start up a company (and, in fact, I do run a small company), I don't see where it's YOUR business… or somehow YOUR “right”… to dictate what I should be allowed to earn as the CEO or actual business owner. Sorry, but that's just Capitalism 101.

>> And, aspire to something more than earning money, buster, make your life stand for something, eh? Isn't that what's it's about?

Uh…actually, no, it's not. What's wrong with making money and making THAT my driving ambition? Did it ever occur to you that maybe I'd like to make as much money as possible… a nearly obscene amount… so that I could THEN turn around and use it for some social cause that I personally believe in? Or put the money to use the way that I think it should be used?

Hey, at all holidays growing up, my Mom always welcomed either my stray friends (who had no where to go) to feed them. Heck, she did that even when it wasn't a holiday. So maybe in her honor… since she passed away a year ago… is to make a crap load of money and eventually open a food shelter for the poor, in her name. To feed some hungry people in my town. That would be a nice thing to do in my Mother's memory.

The point being that no matter what it should be MY choice to spend MY money the way that I choose to — but NOT YOU. Which is ALWAYS the problem with the liberal left and their attitude of “I know what's better for you than you do. And I know how to spend your money better than you.”

And it's because of that arrogant attitude — so prominently and arrogantly on display in liberals like Obama and Pelosi and the current members in Congress — that the Left is going to be voted out in droves come November. Simply because the average American is flat out TIRED of being lectured to by the Left, with their “holier than thou” attitude.


Just A Citizen
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 4:49 am

Mark

Those of us who propose a flat tax don't base it on FAIR.

We base it on the founder's concept of JUSTICE.

It is JUST when the Govt's laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of economic or other status.

We can't agree because we start from fundamentally different ethical positions.

I do not believe you or anyone should be able to determine what is “fair compensation”. And I certainly don't agree with giving Govt the power to “make adjustments for fairness”.

I think there are other ways to address the issues of CEO compensation or that of the super rich getting richer at our expense. Like finding ways to tie their growth in wealth to over all growth in wealth. But that is not governments role. Because as we have seen, once you give that power, everyone will seek the power for their own gain.


Ed
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 4:50 am

And if a private company decides to spill methyl-mercury into the sewer, that's just their business too? No, sorry jack, but there are rules for engagement in this society, and among them is how we treat each other. One way our society has for engaging that care is through tax law – and it can be a pretty good way, it worked to give California the best schools in the world… until big landowners passed prop 13, and now we're down there with Alabama somewhere.

As for life, and it's meaning and purpose; I suppose doing more than striving for money is important to anyone but a nihilist – exception taken. It is not for “me” to make any such decision (your claim), but in the past “we, at large” have decided that taking from the rich is good – for schools, for the arts, for the general welfare. I think it's the right idea, rather than let a few get rich, and hope that they dribble a little down at their whim, or not.

It's the arrogance of the wealthy and powerful that game the system so that they can gain ever more wealth and power that alarms me, not the arrogance of the so-called “left” that feels that we all have responsibilities to one another. That latter arrogance is the same shared by all the major religions; but sorry, I forgot, you're into nihilism. I hope that works out for you.


Just A Citizen
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 4:53 am

Besides, if they are driving these high performance and thus low mileage cars they are paying a higher use rate ($/mile) than the rest of us.

So we are already soaking them for their snobby cars.


Just A Citizen
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 4:55 am

ralphee

Don' t they pay for those resources with their money?

If the resources are scarce the price will increase, and they will pay even more.

So how does an excise tax on “rich” help solve this perceived problem?


Just A Citizen
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 4:58 am

Ed

Our economic history is not about TAX RATES on the very rich. Hell, I've seen papers explaining how the rich never paid those high rates. Just like today they got special tax breaks for certain types of income. Shelters are not new.

If life is not about money, then why are we concerned about those that have so much?


Just A Citizen
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 5:07 am

Csuciadams

The income gap reports I have seen measure the gap against increases in Gross Income or Adjusted Gross Income.

So you see, the proportion of Increased Income captured by any group is BEFORE TAXES.

Which means the high tax brackets had no effect on the “income gap”.

Furthermore, if the higher brackets removed income from the rich it did not give it to the lower brackets. So while you think it was better, it did not raise the total wealth of the lower brackets. Only their percentage of a smaller pie.


LA_screenwriter
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 5:30 am

>> And if a private company decides to spill methyl-mercury into the sewer, that's just their business too? No, sorry jack, but there are rules for engagement in this society, and among them is how we treat each other.

HELLO!!! If a company spills deadly chemicals into the sewer and threatens lives… or even kills people… then they're BREAKING THE LAW. At which point of course they should be taken to court, penalized, reviled, and ultimately be thrown into jail. Because they actually HURT OR KILLED SOMEONE.

But there's a huge freaking difference between THAT — between causing the actual LOSS OF A HUMAN LIFE — and your blathering, morally high-handed idea of creating “social justice” by self-appointing yourself Robin Hood, at which point you feel you likewise have the “right” to decide who you get to steal money from.

Or more to the point, in a truly arrogant belief, you feel that YOU have the “right” to determine how much of MY money… which I worked hard to earn… I should be allowed to keep.

>> It's the arrogance of the wealthy and powerful that game the system so that they can gain ever more wealth and power that alarms me… That latter arrogance is the same shared by all the major religions; but sorry, I forgot, you're into nihilism. I hope that works out for you.

I guess you MISSED the whole part about my ambition to use my company's profits to open a food kitchen for the poor, in honor of my deceased mother. Yes, doing that would make me soooo non-religious and uncaring and nihilistic, compared to YOUR deluded liberal belief — as I've said before — that somehow YOU magically know how to spend my money better than I do.

Tell you what: before you post again, take a refresher course in Reading Comprehension. You'll look a lot less silly your next reply around.


Top 2%er
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 5:30 am

I can't agree with either of you. Mark, the idea that taxes should be punitive goes against every sense and meaning of fairness. There are reasons executive pay has run out of control and we need some regulatory guidelines for corporate boards but most importantly we need transparency in stock holder reports.

Citizen, a flat tax would be just if we had no use taxes but we do (in fact they support most state government). Since use taxes disproportionally affect low income earners a flat tax would make the overall tax structure regressive. The case for just taxes is complex but a progressive tax and estate taxes (to tax dollars that may have never been taxed before) are the most just.


Top 2%er
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 5:31 am

*progressive income tax


Bellbottomeddiscoking
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 5:40 am

So what “ways” do you propose we “tie their [CEO compensation] growth in wealth to over all growth in wealth.”

There is one teenie weenie little point that you so wonderfully missed in your statement: that executive compensation ballooned to obscene amounts DURING A PERIOD OF DEREGULATION.

To counter your statement about “fairness”: so if we can't morally make a determination that some people are disgustingly rich, then by the same premise would we be morally apathetic for the disintegration of the middle class? The fact that for the past THREE DECADES most people have been paid the same amount but worked increasing hours [following adjustments to inflation].

Is it permissible to ignore the dismantling of the middle class (the number one indicator of a healthy economy)? Is it permissible to allow greed to destroy countries?

THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE.

That thhhhpppttthh sound is the wind blowing out of your argument (if it could really be called that).


Lucky
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 5:42 am

Turning the people of this country on each other is exactly what the politicians want. We're too busy arguing amongst each other that we're not collaborating to figure out the real solutions. I certainly will not be lobbying to take money out of someone else's pocket because who knows what their situation is.

I won't vote for someone just because they promise to give me a tax cut and place that burden on a higher income earner. In that scenario, the politician hasn't solved the unemployment rate, they haven't given back foreclosed homes, they haven't provided a better education for kids- they've only succeeded in shifting the blame from themselves to the “$200K+ income earner”. Wake up people, this blame shift spin tactic is yet another scam!


Kerry Hart
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 6:00 am

I find it amazing that people can assume that other citizens in other tax brackets are greedy and selfish just because of their bracket. That is no different than assuming others are lazy or uneducated or unmotivated because of their bracket. Very strange.


Jonathan
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 6:35 am

One other thing to consider in this “argument” is that the rich tend to get more of their income from investment vehicles than in actual pay checks and they pay less taxes on that income. Also, if you have the financial ability, you are able to “hide” your money in creative ways; in the middle class you put your money into 401k's and other pre-tax investments to lower your taxable income, the wealthy do the same but with vastly larger chunks of money.


Jonathan
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 6:44 am

>> In the 50's the average CEO earned 50x times the new-hire in the mailroom. Now, it's 1000x times that. Obscene. That's what you want to continue?

That's the business of the COMPANY to decide, NOT YOU. If the Board of Directors… or stockholders in a company… are morons and decide they want to throw a zillion dollars at a particular exec because they think he's worth it, that's for THEM to decide.

__________________________________________

But when the board of directors of CompanyA is made up of CEO's from CompanyB, C, D, E and F. And the CEO from CompanyA is on the board of directors for Company B, C, D, E & F then what you get is an inbred mess. Each CEO votes for ridiculous raises for the CEO's that are on the his board of directors because he knows that the others will do the same for him.

How else do you explain CEO's that get 10's of millions of dollars while driving a company into the ground? (see any CEO on Wall Street circa 2008)


Hal
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 7:46 am

You cannot tax the wealthy with an INCOME tax. The wealthy already have their money. You can only tax the wealthy with a WEALTH tax.
Switzerland, for example, has a progressive wealth tax with a maximum of 1.5% levied on net assets per year.

An important component of this tax is that it requires that wealth must be itemized and reported.

It would also be a fair plan to tax all “money that you get” the same way. No loopholes for stock options, hedge fund profits, etc.

However, no amount of tax increase can keep up with the desire of politicians to purchase a voters favor by giving him his grandchild's money as benefits now.

STOP SPENDING!


Carrie
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 7:54 am

I think we need a flat tax rate the same for all from the bottom to the top no loope holes no deductions, the same flat tax rate needs to apply to all business, then no one could complain they were paying more or less. BTW exxon didn't pay a dime in taxes last year.


Hal
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 8:01 am

There will be many unintended consequences. We are a very fortunate two-income family. I am nearing retirement age. My wife is younger and earns a very high salary. I run a small business and employ a number of people. If the tax on the top half of our income becomes confiscatory I will go ahead and retire. That will leave me and several other people jobless. I will also stop paying an astounding amount of money into the tax system altogether. Each month I pay far more in taxes for myself and my employees than I pay myself. That will stop.
There are likely millions of boomers like me who are sitting on the fence deciding when to retire from a small business and start surfing the net full-time. That's millions of unemployed employees and zillions LESS in tax revenue.
The only solution is to STOP GOVERNMENT SPENDING!


ME
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 8:05 am

Yes, if a company spills toxic chemicals causing many people to become sick or even die, it is illegal and they should be punnished… But it is their right to compensate their CEOs in any way they see fit so if there is no money to take care of other needs in society, such as helth care or food kitchens, and even more people get sick of malnutrition and other preventable diseases and even die, that is perfectly legal.

Have you ever though that the fact the the laws is set up in such a way is part of the problem!? What good is it to the sick or hungry person now, that you are hoarding all your money in order to take care of them at some later date (if they are still alive) rather than helping when they need it? BUT whatever YOUR personal ambitions may be, YOU are still essentially arguing that a person's right to drive a Bently supersceddes a person's right to eat! But hey, that's only fair because the person driving a bently clearly produces 1000x more for the economy that the average worker, while the poor guy going hungry was simply never interesed in getting a job…


Fireworks | Investors 411
Pingback posted September 9, 2010 @ 9:05 am

[...] offering a modest proposal for a new top tax bracket (those making over $410,000) by Annie Lowrey and what it would mean. Lowrey doesn’t [...]


ME
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 8:27 am

“Those of us who propose a flat tax don't base it on FAIR.

We base it on the founder's concept of JUSTICE.

It is JUST when the Govt's laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of economic or other status.

We can't agree because we start from fundamentally different ethical positions.”

While Justice and Fairness don't always tend to line up, I certainly think that laws should generally try to bridge that gap. By your rational it would be a perfectly just society where someone woudl still be allowed to come up to you with a gun and say “your money or your life.” You were each given the same opportuniteis to buy guns take target practice, self defense classe, or go to the gym and bulk up on steroids… so if you run into someone bigger or stronger that can take what you have it is a perfectly just transaction.

Now I'm sure that you'll protest that in a business transaction you're using your brain not brawn, and that makes a big difference. But lets set that argument aside as it's simply not relevant for most work contracts. However it got to this point one person (the employer) has the gun, while the other (the employee) has the goods. The transaction is nothing more that 'your money or your life' in terms of free market principles.

You see wages have NOTHING to do with just compensation, and everything to do with supply and demand. Huge surplus of labor, so the person holding the capital (gun) simply says I will let you survive, but in exchange you agree to work with 95% of the profits from your labor going to me. You don't like it go find another job where someone is offering better conditions, I'm sure there will be someone coming along will to accept my terms soon enough. So which is it “your labor or your life?”


Daily Digest for September 9 » New Deal 2.0
Pingback posted September 9, 2010 @ 9:50 am

[...] Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket (Washington Independent) Annie Lowrey explores the merits of “soaking the rich” for all they’re [...]


Dgreco01
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 8:57 am

ME – when you say: We base it on the founder's concept of JUSTICE. …It is JUST when the Govt's laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of economic or other status.

when the CEO's have 'Political ” control over the distribution of productivity gains thru their control of the board of directors or the politicians – there needs to be a leveling mechanism

the founders justice provided for that in the control of the House by the people – which controls tax policy – the idea that we are equal is ridiculous – only when it is good for those who control the paying of politicians – the low tax rates for those at $1 million or more at 39% is outrageous and needs to be at 60% or more to counter their political control and provide justice


Fed Up
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 9:17 am

Dear Lucky,

If you aren't a top earner, get a clue. If you are, your attempt to portray yourself as some middle-of-the-road “can't we all just get along” pseudo-populist is just sickening. Returning to the American dream where we have a progressive tax system that prevents the wealthy from parasitizing not just some, but ALL of the wealth gains produced by this country is not class warfare. Class warfare is what the wealthy have been waging for 3 decades. Not surprising at all then that their propaganda, as espoused by you, uses exactly that type of language to combat reasonable solutions to their immoral and outright criminal behavior. If you have a problem with my assertions, spare me your twisted take on how it “really is” and answer me one question. Since there has been zero (that's ZERO) nominal growth in wages for the average American in 3 decades (that's the bottom 85% or so of earners), and this has been a direct result of the economic policies since 1980, what growth in nominal wages in the next 3 decades would be “reasonable” to you? That way, at least we can test your BS 30 years from now. And if you are part of the bottom 85%, get a brain, get some integrity, or get sterilized because you are part of the problem.


Fed Up
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 9:24 am

“I do not believe you or anyone should be able to determine what is “fair compensation”.

Well now, that statement is one of two things. A bold-faced lie, or evidence that you are so clueless, uninformed, and ignorant of the topic that you have no business arguing for one policy or the other. If you truly didn't believe that anyone should be able to determine fair compensation, you certainly wouldn't be arguing the right-wing side of this debate as you are. Assuming there is no perfect solution to who should determine what wages should be in our current system, you certainly wouldn't, in a democracy, choose the imperfect system of leaving it in the hands of the wealthy and powerful who own all the corporations. You would choose the imperfect DEMOCRATIC and AMERICAN and CHRISTIAN system of putting it in the hands of those who ostensibly represent EVERYONE. See how a little kindergarten level logic works? Now if you have a better system, by ALL MEANS, speak up. But if all you've got is the tired old “government is bad” mantra of the corrupt and mentally defective, then spare us all.


Forrestbrandt
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

Rich People who complain about high taxes are lazy.

If they really valued hard work like they say they do then they wouldn’t mind the extra effor it takes to make the next million or billion. If they really valued hard work, they’d be giving higher “living wages” to the people doing the hardest work, not fluffing the pockets of middle management or bull shit self-important CEOs. Shit most of the richest people in the country are only rich because they invested in industries that more likely than not, have received some sort of subsidization from the government. Agricultures, pharma, weapons, mines, chemicals, even Wal-Mart, all get gov’t money. So as a tax payer we should be demanding higher taxes on such corporations and managers. It largely is OUR money.

One could even go as far as to say that higher tax rates might make you work even harder no? If you really want the 2 million. At a 90% tax rate after your first million, you aer going put in more effort and dedication to get to the 2 million bench mark. You’ll really earn it then.


Tyler Lee
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 11:19 am

“Behind every great fortune lies a great theft”: it's time to consider not just higher taxation, but confiscation. Those who have “enclosed the commons” for so long must be made to give it back. They pretend to be great creators of wealth, but we don't need them: they are parasites
who create nothing but extract their “profits” from the true creators, the working people…That's their job, of course: to loot the “underlying population” (T. Veblen)…


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 11:28 am

I have a question for those that are commenting here that are clearly liberal/progressive….

I am currently an unemployed computer programmer. I am conservative, and I am Christian. It seems to me that as I read these various blogs that I have immediately set myself up for being slammed by each and every one of you just from my first sentence, but I'll move on.

At this moment I'm typing this on my laptop sitting in Joplin Mo, in my '76 mobile home that is leaking rain in my kitchen. Long story short I'm broke. However, I have an idea for a program that I'm working very hard to complete ASAP. I believe that this program may be very successful. 2 years from now I may very well be a millionaire. Maybe not. But I believe in the product that I'm currently working on. I believe my success or failure is completely up to me. My potential future wealth is up to me.

So, to my question. If my biggest hopes and dreams come true and through my own hard work, determination, and risks – should I become someone who makes a million dollars a year. What right does anyone else have to the money that I make? Why should the government be able to take my potential wealth and give it to someone else whom they deem to be more beneficial? I just don't get it. Maybe I'm just stupid, my IQ test says otherwise, but it seems pretty simple to me… I am responsible for my own destiny and the more money government takes from my pocket the more that government impedes my potential. If you feel that I'm wrong, please explain why.

One last thing just for clarity, yes I do understand that government does need to collect taxes in order to function. But today government seems more interested in wealth redistribution rather than being a government of, for and by the people.


Project Savior
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 11:37 am

If the bottom 50% of income earners have no money beyond what they need to buy food, shelter and healthcare, who exactly is going to buy your product?
It really is that simple.


Corebus
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 11:50 am

chris are you receiving unemployment checks? if so how do you think the government pays for that? do you drive a car on the road? if so how do you think the government pays for that? do you or do you plan to have children who might go to a public school? how do you think the government pays for that? there are many people in america and we have been enjoying low taxes thinking we can pay for all our needs, is it not simple to understand that the wealthy should and could afford higher taxes compared to the suffering middle class? Clinton raised taxes for the wealthy and our economy had the great growth in jobs so you cant say raising taxes kills jobs.. no matter if we raise taxes or not big corporations are going to become more and more efficient needing less and less employees on the payroll.


rich
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

well chris good luck with your program i hope its a sucess
to keep it short for the last 10 years the Bush tax cuts were touted as an elixir that was going to create millions of jobs
yet all it did was to drain the treasury of nearly a trillion dollars
that was then borrowed in order to fill that hole the wealthy
continued to get wealthy while the middle class diminished and the national debt just grew and grew on the contrary millions jobs disappeared virtually zero jobs were created during GWB`s term so in short how can we continue a policy that failed so badly and has done so much harm and finally in any fair society how can we ask those with less to pick the majority of the tab while the wealthy continue to demand more and lastly Chris under Clinton more wealth and jobs were created while the tax rate for the rich was 3.0% higher how then can there be an argument against returning to what works good luck with your idea


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

You're implying that anyone that is 'wealthy' must have generated their wealth by scamming the poorer of our nation (such as myself). Maybe some have, but is it not fair to say that maybe, just maybe some of those people came to be wealthy due to, oh I don't know… hard work? Am I to believe that EVERYONE that is “rich” is somehow immoral simply because they have nicer things than I do, or that they don't have to worry as much as myself about keeping the lights on this month?

Rather than attack those who have more wealth, shouldn't we (God forbid) encourage everyone to pick themselves up and make something of themselves? I know that is probably a terrible idea, since some will be more successful than others, but then again if the government were to 'equal the playing field' wouldn't that be just a little on the marxist/socialist/communist side of things? Of, course I'm just an uneducated hick that drives a 20 year old environment polluting Chevy. But hey, at least it's paid for… oh, crap that's probably ignorant as well to actually live within my means.


Protectedracket
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

Corebus
All of your examples are NOT the responsibility of the federal government. Individuals send their hard earned money to Washington only to have to beg (Race to the Top, HUD funds) for it back. Lower federal tax rates, then let the states decided how to fill the gap.


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

Perhaps you should read all the way to the end on my post. After you have, come back and read the rest of this reply…

Now, yes I drive a car, yes I plan to have children and yes I am receiving unemployment checks (for about another 4 weeks – I will not be applying for an extension). But my problem is with a government that wants to redistribute wealth (again, it's part of what I said in my previous post). When I read about a 1/2 billion dollar school being built in California, a state that has some of the highest taxes in the nation, and also has almost if not the highest debt problem of any other state, it does not provoke a feeling of confidence in myself that our taxes are being spent wisely. I then have to ponder… does government know best how to allocate those tax dollars? Call me crazy, but I think there might be a few places that maybe the government could cut spending. Perhaps the people we have elected to represent our interests might learn to live within their means, and thusly spend our tax dollars with a bit of sanity. Just as one example (there are many and we all know it) maybe next time we could skip spending 9.3 million dollars on things like RoboBees. Just for reference, here's the url to that info…

https://www.research.gov:443/rgov/anonymous.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=awardInfo_1_4&awardInfo_1_4_actionOverride=%2Fgov%2Fresearch%2Fservices%2FawardInfo%2FviewAwardDetail&awardInfo_1_4viewAll=false&awardInfo_1_4agencyId=NSF&awardInfo_1_4d-16544-p=1&awardInfo_1_4d-16544-s=fundsObligated&awardInfo_1_4d-16544-o=1&awardInfo_1_4awardId=0926148&_pageLabel=page_research_funding_search


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

I agree with much of what you said. However, I contend that at the very least, at this time our economy may be better served if we cut spending. Is that such a terrible idea? Bush and the republicans spent WAY too much and left us with a huge debt. Obama said he would change all of that, but all I'm seeing is more of the same, more government spending. The more the government spends the more money it will want to take from the rich. Today they want to raise the taxes for the top wage earners to that which was in place during the Clinton years. Honestly that in and of itself doesn't sound bad. But, if in the same bill they spend another 50 billion dollars, I have to ask, where does it stop? At what point do we say government has spent too much? As government spends more and more, they must demand more and more from the rich. If that continues as well, where does that stop?


Chichel
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:45 pm

You'll just shutter the business? You won't sell it? Seems pretty silly.


Chichel
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

They use far more of the commons than we do, Bentley aside. How do their employees get to work, stay safe, etc? What about all of the laws in place to protect corporations? They use the courts more than we do, too. Shall I go on?


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:52 pm

Good point, let me attempt to counter…

Lets assume for a moment that my product works out and I do become a very wealthy person. At some point I'll need to hire employees to keep my software up to date, and ahead of my competition. Now, if government takes more and more money out of my pocket I have 3 choices… 1) Cut my own pay, which of-course would be my first choice as I know what it's like to worry about money all to well and I would not want to impose that on anyone if I can keep from it, but if taxes continue to rise as the government spends more and more money thus demanding more taxes, I have to move to one of the other 2 choices… 2) Cut the pay of my employees, or 3) Get rid of some employees. Right now they are talking about raising taxes to the levels that were in place during Clintons presidency (I have no problem with that aspect of Obamas plan), but at the same time they want to spend another 50 billion. Where does it end? Remember the first stimulus was supposed to create these same jobs that Obama is saying that his new plan will create. If we need a new plan to create the same jobs that the first plan was supposed to create, maybe the problem is with the plan. Is that not a legitimate question?


Ilse
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

The wealthy owe more because they use more of America's public infrastructures that allow the financial and business sectors to operate.

i.e., most of the very expensive court system is taken up with contract and other industry issues. We the People spend a great deal of money ensuring that contracts are enforced and that finance and industry have a free, open and policed system in which to build wealth.

The wealthy reintroduce far less of that wealth into the general economy than the middle class. They're not building industry in the face of recession: that would entail risk. Instead, they're currently buying up foreclosed homes, investing overseas and in safe U.S. bonds that contribute nothing to the private economy.

Wealthy corporations are making money hand over fist using American industry infrastructure to amass and store profits built on overseas slave labor and environmental damage and destruction.

Companies who outsource would never take the rist of administering and banking profits in the same corrupt nations whose workers they exploit. They rely on the stable industry infrastructure subsidized by We The People to keep those fat profits safe.

The wealthy use and benefit from public industry-support infrastructures far more than the middle class. Time for them to stop sponging and start carrying their weight.


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

So, when Steve Jobs and Woz started Apple in their garage, a company that ultimately created many millionairs, they did so through “lies and great theft”? Do you seriously believe that anyone who is wealthy must be a liar and a theif? I know this will sound hollow and fake to someone with such a world view, but I honestly feel bad for you. Are there bad people out there that are rich? Yep. Are there bad people out there that are poor? Yep. But not all who are rich are bad, just as not all who are poor are bad. Maybe one day you will understand that simply labeling anyone who belongs to a designated group as being all bad, or all good is not the best way to advance your point of view.


Pezdrake
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

The problem was not so much that Bush (or any other President or Congress) spent toomuch, it was that they spent more than they took in. I can spend all I want if I am working hard and making lots of money. The only problem comes when I decide to spend and spend and at the same time deliberately reduce my income, which is what Bush did with his tax cuts. I think I can safely say that the eight years (to be fair, six years since that is when the GOP had control of all three branches of government) of Reaganomics we saw did NOT improve the economy, did not result in better lives for most working Americans and did not decrease our deficit. I assume that even hardcore conservatives would concede this point, that the Bush tax cuts, and tax cuts for the super rich actually improved the lives of the average American but who knows.


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

That was a very well written and almost compelling argument. Karl Marx would be very proud.


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

There's only one problem with your idea… it's logical.


Independent Sales Organization / Merchant Service Provider of Wells Fargo Bank Announces Strategic Partnership With … | ach-debit
Pingback posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

Absolutely I agree, and yes I am very conservative. However you also illustrate my point. We need to cut spending. I know that if I have a given amount of money I must spend it in the most efficient manner possible. But when a government can simply print money and/or demand more from it's citizens for more and more government programs (i.e. wealth redistribution) ultimately it has no choice but to collapse under it's own weight. There must be a point where we as a people must decide that the government has grown to large (personally I think we reached that point under Bush – Obama is continuing this ever increasing government) and must learn to cut it's own spending just as the majority of it's citizens are having to do. If you must raise taxes, and there is a legitimate reason then I'm all for it. But don't on one had demand more taxes while the other is spending more on plans that are not creating a net increase of jobs. Obama has argued, essentially, that we were loosing more jobs during the Bush years than so far during his term. That sounds great, but it took a tremendous amount of money to achieve that. And now Obama wants to spend even more money, while at the same time he said that he thinks government should be 'lean'. Obviously his definition of lean is different than mine. I would start with taking a look at exactly what jobs were created with the stimulus, and determine if they were cost effective. It seems that with a sustained unemployment of 9.5, going up slightly now to 9.6, perhaps the spending that Obama has been doing is not the most efficient way to spend our tax dollars. Anybody that runs a business must learn to do this very simple thing, I think we used to call it a budget. Perhaps if Obama would have ever ran a company and had to produce a profit he would have learned this himself.


Fed Up
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

I didn't say that all wealthy people are scamming the poor, but you are closing your eyes to the truth if you believe that the current economic system isn't. The rules have ALL been written by wealthy people to benefit…wait for it…wealthy people. This isn't surprising, people tend to look out for themselves first. That does not mean, in a democracy where the entire founding principle is that everyone should be given equal opportunity and be treated equally by the law, that we should stand back and allow this ridiculous set of circumstances. The simple fact is that the last 3 decades have seen the greatest wealth generation the country has EVER experienced. The simple fact is that the bottom 85% have gained ZERO from this. The simple fact is that this is the first time such massive wealth expansion has been entirely consumed by the top earners. Even in the days of the robber barons, before all of the protections for workers, when children could still be enslaved for 12 hour or longer days in sweatshops, the poorer classes in this country would still get the crumbs. Do you understand that there were literally no crumbs left behind this time, for the first time ever? Do you understand that the wealthy are paying historical low income taxes? Do you think these two things are unrelated? This isn't about socialism. It isn't about wealth redistribution (an obnoxious phrase since for a progressive tax policy to be redistributive, you have start from the premise that the wealthy have the right to own ALL productivity to begin with). The GOP never calls it income redistribution when they lower taxes on the wealthy and don't pay for the tax break. Who do YOU think will pay for that in the future? Are you going to tell us you believe that money won't be at least partly coming out of your pocket, and your children's and your grandchildren's? Are you telling me you are okay with that?


Samsung LED TV slim wallmount » Samsung 27 Slimfit
Pingback posted September 9, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Chris
Comment posted September 9, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

I'm very sorry if this sounds condescending, but are you by any chance still in high school. Your logic is so completely flawed that it will take hours for me to explain why you are so completely wrong both about your conclusions as well as what you perceive to be the problem. All I can say with any expediency is that I hope you will start taking a look at our economic history. Pay close attention to the percentages and relationships between overall GDP output as related to tax revenue. When you're finished with that, study at least briefly the results of countries who have done wealth redistribution. It has never had a successful outcome. Please, Please, anyone that is convinced that we can govern ourselves by taking from the halves and giving to the halve nots – Please read the words of our founding fathers, read the constitution and the bill of rights. What you, and by extension Obama, are trying to convince the rest of us is the way to go, is the exact opposite of how our country was intended to be ran.


National Heads Up Poker Championship 2009 Episode 4 4/4 | Poker Monium
Pingback posted September 9, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


lowtechcyclist
Comment posted September 10, 2010 @ 4:36 pm

I'm all for this. Why not have new brackets at not only $1 million, but at, say, $5M, $20M, $100M, $300M, and $1 billion?


lowtechcyclist
Comment posted September 10, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

I'd just like to point out that your two questions, (1) “What right does anyone else have to the money that I make?” and (2) “Why should the government be able to take my potential wealth and give it to someone else whom they deem to be more beneficial?” aren't arguments against added tax brackets, but against taxation in general.

And it's based also on a mistaken belief that that's what governments do with your tax dollars. They pay for everything from roads to wars to schools to demographic surveys.

The wars aside, what government does with most of this money is crank out stuff that gives everyone else the chance to do what they do more efficiently, that nobody else would be likely to do on anywhere near the same scale.

Government spending, by and large, generates wealth, by making it more feasible or more efficient for everyone else to do what they do to create wealth. You're developing a great program, I'm sure, but if you hadn't had a decent education, you wouldn't know where to start. And while maybe you would have had a decent education anyway, due to your choice of parents, not all smart toddlers were so lucky in *their* choice of parents. Yet don't they all deserve the same chance to become smart and reasonably well-educated 18 year olds? Most of us think so. If you disagree, there's really nothing to argue about.

A couple of statements I'd like to take issue with:

3) “I believe in the product that I'm currently working on. I believe my success or failure is completely up to me. My potential future wealth is up to me.”

Oh, baloney. Imagine this as a simulation. If you developed the exact same program in one million parallel Earths, each one starting from where we are right now, do you think you'd be equally wealthy in all of them? Hell, no! Supposing this thing really IS worth a few million to someone, in some possible futures you'd fail to convince anyone of that and would still be living in your leaky trailer, while in others, you'd spend the rest of your life drinking margaritas on a very nice beach somewhere. The difference between one possible future and another? Nothing you did – just plain dumb luck.

4) “But today government seems more interested in wealth redistribution rather than being a government of, for and by the people.”

I have no idea what this is based on. I'm 56 years old, and the government is clearly less interested in wealth redistribution than at any previous time in my life.


In Which I Shrug at Raising Taxes On the Rich « The Regimen
Pingback posted September 10, 2010 @ 7:09 pm

[...] Which I Shrug at Raising Taxes On the Rich Over the last twenty-four hours, Annie Lowery and Reihan Salam have been debating the merits of a new income tax bracket for the exceptionally [...]


Chris
Comment posted September 10, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

Wow, people seem to have a hard time reading my entire comments. I have responded many times now about this apparent ability of people to ignore that I acknowledged that government must collect taxes to function. I'll let those who are interested take time to read my other posts and it is very clear.

I liked your apparent reference to the Multiverse theory. That's a very interesting subject matter to apply against the argument that we are responsible for our own destiny. I know that's not what 'you' said, but if you take it to it's logical conclusion that's the basic gist of it. Perhaps you should give that speech to all future entrepreneurs – see how many give up before even trying simply because they have just as much possibility for failure as they do for success. Ooo, wait a minute, I actually did elude to that fact as well right there in my post. Again, at 56 you should realize that you must read something in it's entirety to fully realize context.

I did have a bit of 'luck' if you will, as to my education. My father, and mother as well as my grandparents are all very intelligent, but each in various subjects. But they all taught me one very important lesson. How to be an independent thinker, how to get things done myself, how to pick myself up when I've been knocked down… you know all that stuff that used to be common sense hard work kinda stuff. I did go to college for computer programming, and I do have a degree. However, the most interesting thing I learned in college is that they expect that a student is learning their chosen profession from scratch. Maybe it's just me, but that just seems completely backwards. My assumption (when I first enrolled) was that college was there to teach someone who already knows a good deal about their chosen major, how to advanced beyond what you can learn from a handful of books at the local book store. So, since I've been self taught in computer programming since the age of 12 (I'm 34 now btw) it was quite disappointing to pay so much money for classes that taught things that I learned from books that cost on average 30 to 60 dollars. But I stuck with it so that I could have a degree to show other employers that I do know that which I claim to know. Too bad in this economy that piece of paper hasn't helped so much lately. Nor has my years of experience since graduating.

Lastly, you said that government is clearly less interested in wealth redistribution than at any previous time in your life. Maybe you somehow slipped through a wormhole and ended up in a parallel universe yourself. Obama has spent more in his first 18 months than all previous presidents combined. I don't know about you, but I don't see a need for government to fund things like spending $850,000 “Studying how paying attention improves performance of difficult tasks”. Perhaps if we all studied what our elected officials are doing with our money we would all be a bit more suspect in their ability to make wise, efficient, decisions in it's allocation.

If our government was simply spending our tax dollars on infrastructure, and doing so in an efficient manner then I would have no problem with taxes. But they are not spending our money wisely. Having grown up fairly poor, most liberals seem to think that I am the exact kind of person they are trying to help with all of these entitlement programs. Even more asinine is that some seem to think I'm unintelligent since I'm “just too stupid to understand” the benefits that the government has provided to help people who are of low income. Most of these programs, yes, were originally started with good intentions, but the side effect is that you end up with a nanny state of citizens that simply expect handouts rather than learning from their mistakes and trying to apply themselves to make a better life for themselves. But then again, it's all just chance anyway huh? So, why should we even try? I just find it amazing that someone at 56 seems to think this way. I have always had respect for those that are older than me, because most of those that are my parents age (that I have known in my little part of the world) and older do have that 'can do' attitude. I guess there are people that expect the government to do everything for us, at all age brackets. God help us all.


Affiliate Revenue
Trackback posted September 10, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

Affiliate Revenue Income Generation…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…


Mysilverstate.com-Where progressive netizens unite
Trackback posted September 11, 2010 @ 4:08 am

The Limits Of Conventional Politics…

I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…


Internet Marketing
Trackback posted September 11, 2010 @ 5:05 am

My Online Income System – Earn up to $75/sale…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…


He Melitta
Comment posted September 11, 2010 @ 2:04 pm

Chris, quit complaining about ppl not reading your comments. It's called “too long; didn't read” (tldr).

The key to great writing: BREVITY. Unlike you, most of us have to go to work. We don't have time to read every iteration of your dumb opinions.

And since I went there, if you don't believe in liberal fascist wealth redistribution, why are you taking unemployment? Are you too good to work at Wal-Mart or McDonald's? Because I believe that unemployment makes our economy more efficient if folks use the time to find a job or get job training. But if you have no plans to use that time effectively (meaning: stop spending your precious job search time on comment chains) then you are just taking a government subsidized vacation.

Now that ain't fair to you or to any of us taxpayers, mmmkay?


2000 Reg Vw Lupo Black in good condition New Tax New. . . . | very cheap car insurance | Car Insurance Information Online!
Pingback posted September 11, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Chris
Comment posted September 11, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

You just made my day, that was very funny. I'll take you're advice and keep it brief. My comments are long, because they address multiple topics. Your lack of attention illustrates the problem with many in the country right now. I don't mean to be offensive, it's just amazing how multiple people can ask the same question, when it was answered within the VERY FIRST POST.


» Bonanza for card-carrying brokers
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 3:39 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


With one income, planning more important | affordable life insurance
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 3:46 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Working Holiday in Canada/USA? | affordable life insurance
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 8:12 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Peter Schiff interview (Taki’s Magazine, March 9 2009) | GrantGift.com | US Government Grants for Free!
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 12:45 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Tax abatement sought for new nursing home here | affordable life insurance
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 12:50 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


where can i find some cheap insurance for my wife and child? | affordable life insurance
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


disability insurance percentage of income covered? | affordable life insurance
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


10 points for these questions please? | affordable life insurance
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Weekend link dump for September 12 – Off the Kuff
Pingback posted September 12, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

[...] We need more tax brackets. [...]


Inequality and Opportunity
Pingback posted September 13, 2010 @ 11:33 am

[...] basketball players won’t really help reduce inequality or spread opportunity in that world. Higher tax brackets for the super-rich, however, [...]


Inequality and Opportunity - South Capitol Street
Pingback posted September 13, 2010 @ 11:46 am

[...] basketball players won’t really help reduce inequality or spread opportunity in that world. Higher tax brackets for the super-rich, however, [...]


The Kobe Bryant theory of inequality - South Capitol Street
Pingback posted September 13, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

[...] basketball players won’t really help reduce inequality or spread opportunity in that world. Higher tax brackets for the super-rich, however, [...]


The Kobe Bryant theory of inequality Internet Related Technologies The Kobe Bryant theory of inequality
Pingback posted September 13, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

[...] basketball players won’t really help reduce inequality or spread opportunity in that world. Higher tax brackets for the super-rich, however, [...]


Kensington 64068F MicroSaver Notebook Lock and Security Cable | laptop computers blog
Pingback posted September 14, 2010 @ 8:24 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Millard
Comment posted September 15, 2010 @ 5:48 am

I agree with much you’ve said LA Screenwriter, but then again conservatives have never met a Big Business that couldn’t buy them either! Don’t forget Screenwriter/Bentley,Porsche, whatever (who really gives a sh*t) driver, When Marie Antoinette was informed her subjects had no bread to eat, she said “Let them eat cake”. I think she lost her head over that one!


Millard
Comment posted September 15, 2010 @ 5:48 am

I agree with much you’ve said LA Screenwriter, but then again conservatives have never met a Big Business that couldn’t buy them either! Don’t forget Screenwriter/Bentley,Porsche, whatever (who really gives a sh*t) driver, When Marie Antoinette was informed her subjects had no bread to eat, she said “Let them eat cake”. I think she lost her head over that one!


Millard
Comment posted September 15, 2010 @ 3:26 am

Chris, that old adage “when the Republicans are in office, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” was true when I was a kid 60 years ago and is too true today! Republicans ALWAYS, give more tax benefits to the rich and cut programs for the needy! People who have fallen on bad times, not only those dead beats out there! You either have your head you know where or you're rich, so you can say, go to hell majority of Americans! We've got ours and we're not going to help those who might need it cause they're bums! If you're a Christian…..you might want to change your religious title. Oh right, I know, Jesus said “the poor will always be with us.” Gives you people the justification you need in order to screw the poor. This is probably not well written Chris, but if is from my heart and not from my greedy self-interest ego!


Millard
Comment posted September 15, 2010 @ 4:24 am

I knew you were a Christian Chris!! Wealth distribution Indeed! Now, let me ask you a question? Is your goal in life to be a millionaire, or to help others. Jesus Christ had nothing! His mission was to help others and the majority of them were desperately poor, held down by the ruling class! He's made into a God..Mother Theresa had nothing..her goal was to help others..she's made into a saint!

Others may not be as brainy as you Chris and aren't working on a computer program that will make them “filthy” rich (There's a reason it's called filthy rich somewhere) I was never rich, and at this stage in my life never will be, but I was glad to pay MY taxes if some of that went for-Oh My God, should I dare say it-social programs to help the less fortunate. I always had a roof over my head, food to eat, enough to buy a few luxeries…I never thought I needed a million dollars, just wanted to live a decent life with some dignity. Well since Reaganomics, I saw a lot of that dream go down the drain! But, that's not enough for people like you. You wanta, gotta be rich so you can have more homes than you can live in, more cars than you can drive, eat in the fanciest restaurants, have the most beautiful babe on your arm, look down on all those “have-nots” and say “look at ME!” Ain't I something? I know Christians like you Chris. “Well Jesus said 'the poor will always be with us'”. Using his message for justification for your selfishness and greed! You called people who don't believe as you Marxists, Socialists, whatever! Have you ever thought of yourself as a CAPITALIST PIG!? Labels, lables. I despise people like you false Christians! I know the Bible; Matthew 19.24 Jesus said “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Get rich Chris, resent the hell out of some of our fellow citizens who might be helped with some of the taxes you pay and then try and enter the kingdom of God. Good Luck! But then most Christians I know ignore what they don't like about the Bible and pay attention to what they do! tsk, tsk. I'm only commenting on your religious beliefs cause you revealed that you were a Christian…but I had already figured that as I stated earlier. Great quote Chris, too bad I don't remember from whom: CHRISTIAN, CHANGE YOUR WAYS OR CHANGE YOUR NAME! You don't like being preached to boy, than don't reveal to me you're a “Christian”.


Millard
Comment posted September 15, 2010 @ 5:16 am

Oh Chris you keep feeding my “uneducated rantings” You probably ignore my comments anyway because I can't expound on where or where not our tax dollar is going and I'm not “formally” well educated. But I am life educated and I damn sure know that very little of it is going to the middle class or poor. I told you before, When spending is cut when conservatives are in office, it is cut from social programs. From Education, from basic things that people need! The people who might possibly need a “leg up”! After all most American citizens pay taxes…so when they're having hard times, why should'nt they benefit from all those tax dollars they have paid for sooooo many years? Is spending cuts on all those programs for the wealthy!!! Hell no! And this tax break that Bush gave the wealthy has about run it's course! He should have passed a bill where they got that tax break forevah! These wealthy Big business hogs have outsourced most of their jobs to third world countries anyway, so they only have to pay their workers…what?? $.25 an hour with no benefits, except possibly they can afford to buy some food for their family? This country was doing pretty darn good when Clinton was in office, Never should have done NAFTA tho. Eight years of Bush took us right down the proverbial TOILET. He and Cheney, who by the way is from my home state and has around eight drunk driving violations on record..getting off track here and on a “rant” again, but we voted in two ex-drunks, ex druggie cowboys for the highest office in the country! I know all that alcohol & drugs had to impair their thinking process! We Americans are pretty sharp! Nothing will ever change in this country unless the average American citizen takes an active role in politics. Know who the hell we are voting into office and not just taking their (politicians) words, spin, lies for the gospel truth.I believe Obama wanted to help the average citizen in this country and he certainly isn't getting any help with those conservatives who are so bought out by big business! Obama at least can put together comprehensive thoughts and ideas! Where are the conservatives ideas that would actually help the “people”? We The People” Not “We The Corportions”.Oh, by the way, I'm sure you know that many conservatives and “tea baggers” want to do away with Unemployment, privatize Social Security (so Wall Street can invest the money that's taken out of your paycheck) Goood idea! Get rid of Medicare..they have so many wonderful ideas on how to screw the working/middle class people. Oh I love these people…NOT


Millard
Comment posted September 15, 2010 @ 5:31 am

Boy Chris, you are so arrogant for someone who is so young..Yeah, I forgot, that's because you are so bright and well educated. Is this country all about creating millionairs? Isn't this country about compassion also? Guess not. Brighter, more educated, wiser, compassionate men/women than you will ever be are what you would “label” Socialists being you're a conservative. So I wouldn't comment on labeling people or groups if I were you! Pot calling the kettle black?Giving this man a lesson on bad people and good people! WOW!


Wood Frame Cork Bulletin Board B 35-380342 Q By Acco Brands
Pingback posted September 15, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


income taxes brazil | PROPERTY TAXES
Pingback posted September 16, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money :: Make Money Online
Pingback posted September 20, 2010 @ 4:51 am

[...] a separate item earlier this week Lowrey made the case for more tax brackets which I think would do a good job of capturing the intuition that there’s a difference between [...]


The Actor’s Tax Guide | auto accident lawyers
Pingback posted September 21, 2010 @ 5:32 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


The Tax Plight of the $250,000 to $500,000 Crowd | iTAX – tax news
Pingback posted September 23, 2010 @ 9:12 pm

[...] top brackets of decades past. There’s been talk in Democratic circles of changing this and adding a new millionaires’ tax bracket, but no evidence so far that the idea is really going [...]


Taxing the Super-Rich, Ctd. North Capitol Street
Pingback posted September 25, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

[...] the diavlog, I argue again that we should impose a millionaire’s tax, because income inequality has increased so egregiously over the course of the past decade. But I [...]


How does a TV Wall mount secure itself to the studs in the wall? | TV
Pingback posted September 29, 2010 @ 11:02 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


High school football schedule for Week Three | hand bag shopping
Pingback posted October 2, 2010 @ 10:15 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Parking revenue shifts into high gear | ach-debit
Pingback posted October 4, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


What is the lowest credit score I can have to get a student debt consolidation loan? | ach-debit
Pingback posted October 5, 2010 @ 2:47 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Child Benefit from your home.
Pingback posted October 5, 2010 @ 4:57 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


It pays to Child Benefit.
Pingback posted October 5, 2010 @ 5:17 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


The Ultimate Child Benefit guide.
Pingback posted October 5, 2010 @ 6:09 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


debt advice needed? | ach-debit
Pingback posted October 6, 2010 @ 10:27 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Debt Advice For A 24-year-old Male? | ach-debit
Pingback posted October 6, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


How should I get a mortgage loan with low credit score? | ach-debit
Pingback posted October 6, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


How self assesment, tax payments and insurance contributions are paid for self employed in UK? | ach-debit
Pingback posted October 7, 2010 @ 2:47 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


What credit score do I need to buy my first House? | credit
Pingback posted October 16, 2010 @ 4:48 am

[...] The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket « The Washington Independent [...]


Anonymous
Pingback posted November 2, 2010 @ 5:51 am

[...] [...]


RealTime - Questions: "Could you rate me? scale of 1-10? please?"
Pingback posted December 1, 2010 @ 10:14 am

[...] six baby girl names? | ?????????? ???????, ???-???????, Adobe, Flash The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket | The Washington Independent Stock Gumshoe Reveals: “Inside the Vortex of a Historic Windfall” Point/counterpoint: [...]


World Spinner
Trackback posted December 7, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

The Case for a New Top Income Tax Bracket | The Washington Independent…

Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……


Empty suit update
Pingback posted December 8, 2010 @ 1:30 am

[...] 40% and 45%. Oddly enough, we have an article saying at least 39% from the Washington Independent. http://washingtonindependent.com/968…me-tax-bracket Peter Orszag’s New York Times opinion piece has set off a flurry of discussion about whether [...]


Christian C
Comment posted December 8, 2010 @ 10:39 pm

Because Chris. At this point you are NOT a millionaire but someone else is through their “hard work and determination and risks” and guess what Chris. The government is giving their hard earned money to YOU! An out of work, opinionated guy with no money being paid by the guy you want to become to sit on your butt and try to get rich! That’s why Chris!


Kfd
Comment posted March 4, 2011 @ 5:47 am

I don’t understand where people get the idea that someone is entitled to their “fair share” of the profits/income. Whether someone is fairly paid is based solely on the market value of their labor. It’s has nothing to do with what someone else makes.


Kfd
Comment posted March 4, 2011 @ 5:54 am

I make a middle class income. I’m “entitled” to what I can charge for my work. Not a penny more. If someone else can make $100 million. Good for them. That does not mean it’s unfair. What if they only made 1 million. Ha the “fairness” of my income changed?


Craigo
Comment posted May 4, 2011 @ 2:07 am

You make no sense. You think that if person A makes 5x as much as person B, and uses 5x as much of the resources to do it, that they should pay 50x the tax rate?


Craigo
Comment posted May 4, 2011 @ 2:17 am

You are forgetting one huge thing, Millard. You cannot support the poor on declining GNP. The poor do not employ. Employers create jobs when there is a projected return on their investment. When this is eaten up in additional income tax to support social programs, fewer jobs are created, and the snowball effect begins. Biting the hand that feeds you is never the answer. Business owners are tired of the extra weight of dragging the stupid and the lazy around. Social programs cause lower incentive for the stupid and the lazy to actually earn their keep. What you liberals want will kill our nation because for you is all about stealing from the intelligent until there is no money left for your stupid programs.


Craigo
Comment posted May 4, 2011 @ 2:25 am

Boy. If you had your way, there wouldn’t be any money for you to steal anymore, and everyone would be poor or dead.


Craigo
Comment posted May 4, 2011 @ 2:28 am

It was the liberal majority under Bush that started squandering our hard-earned money. Check the charts.


gloss white bedroom furniture
Trackback posted May 17, 2011 @ 9:28 am

white bedroom furniture…

Hi! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There’s a lot of folks that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Thanks…


nordstrom dresses formal
Trackback posted May 17, 2011 @ 7:38 pm

nordstrom dresses…

I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the layout of your site? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text…


brm watch replica
Comment posted May 23, 2011 @ 6:55 am

Bell & Ross Watches Collection Instrument BR 01-92 Black Dial given that a world-class celebrity backing sleight of hadvantageous at native soil and abroad,w69009z3 haunt sort clan honey this breguet watches,this swiss watches sales unwavering you and decipherable,save you are a slurp of cleave to Bell & Ross Watches BR 02 Blue stalk aristocratic subsequently this graph is really suitable,this Replica Patek Philippe watches gain,Bell & Ross Watches Collection Instrument BR 01-92 cerulean return it no slipshod to corrosion,charm safe of IWC Watches IW504210 resonance, panerai watches luminor the rate is principally miserly,you possibly will acquire cheap watches as well as add-on stubbornness. 


BMW Used Cars
Trackback posted August 22, 2011 @ 9:47 am

BMW Cars…

Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it’s new to me. Anyhow, I’m definitely delighted I found it and I’ll be book-marking and checking back frequently!…


oakland car auction
Trackback posted August 23, 2011 @ 1:19 pm

oakland car auction…

Hey there, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that,…


Earline Bogel
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 12:41 am

You’re never too old to learn something stupid.


4589972
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

4589972 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.