C'mon guys we have already been through this. It's true that the wealthy pay a large dollar amount but overall they pay less in tax then they ever did.
To say that the rich would be "soaked" is flat out wrong. Bear in mind, this article is two years old and I find some of the things Krugman discussed to be eerie...given what has happened this week which, btw, has been conspicuously absent from this week's topics.
We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people...
What's this "put it back" business? That implies the money was there in the first place, which it couldn't have been if it's coming from wealthier people.
But more to the point... why do they want to raise taxes on the wealthy? Because they're SOCIALISTS. They'll couch it in whatever terms they think are the most expedient, e.g. patriotism. But what it comes down to is that it's not fair that some people have more than others.
From the April 16 Democratic debate:
GIBSON: You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
I think Obama's current plan is enough. I also think that Obama is going to be a more responsible spender based on these plans. Remember, he wants to keep most of the Bush tax cuts in place, reduce estate tax, and introduce a slew of other tax cuts to students, seniors, and low income earners. He's going to have to re-structure the way government spends because he is going to be cutting taxes.
"The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money."
http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm
The Treasury Report estimates losses could be between 60 and 80 billion dollars in revenue.
BTW, Your very quote from the debate is mentioned at the beginning with a good explanation of what is actually happening.
Mark -- That's not the point at all. Look at Obama's response. He didn't challenge the assertion that lower tax rates generate more revenues, he said it was about fairness. He's a socialist.
...and introduce a slew of other tax cuts to students, seniors, and low income earners...
In other words, to people who don't really pay taxes in the first place. Geez, when I was a student, I looked forward to tax season, because it meant I got to cash in. What's going to happen after Obama's "fair" tax cuts? Will these people get even bigger "rebates" from taxpayers' pockets?
The Bush tax cuts make sense, because the people who are paying the most are getting the biggest breaks. And yet the rich, who according to the figures Kevin posted shoulder the vast majority of the burden, are villified. I'll never understand the dark envy that preys on the leftist soul.
Bunch of spineless sad sacks, when the dumbestest President evar can control them without Dick 'Shot-em-in-the-back' Cheney's eviiil mind plotting eviiil deeds to do unto the weak and hapless Democrats. Unless he has been plotting to shoot them in the back, and they know it!
Screw having a majority! Their goal, clearly, is to see how low their popularity can drop by working their darnedest to pass absolutely worthless stuff, like renaming park names to something more in vogue with the latest PC styles and a new appreciate somebody or other day.
Shockingly, I'm almost pleased with the absolutely worthlessness of Congress. If they'd act like this all the time, pissing their time away trying to make sure they don't hurt anyone's feelings (except for the Christians, screw them) and can't cobble a bill together to save a polar bear, then let's keep voting in the cream of cream of the dumb, which is a hot contest between the Democrats, the Lefties (not fair, too much overlap) and a good swath of the Republicans.
They way the Deomcrats have quickly made Congress into a body of no great import almost astounds me, but then I read Marky-mark's, ah, 'comments' and then it is so much more clear.
I should have said...He's gotten everything he's ever wanted with a Congress that acted little more like cheerleaders, pushing through bill after bill that Bush dupes wrote.
Ed, show me exactly where and how Bush has been blocked the last eight years. On every major issue, he was won the day.
"Bush sure as heck runs it now." HAhahahahahahahahahahahah! There is no Harry Reid and no Pelosi - the bill to gut earmarks and show who benefits wasn't prevented by Harry Reid, it was Bush! No billions of dollars worth of earmarks contained in a separate, unpublished committee report were protected by Harry. No it's all Bush all the time!
You can't drain the swamp when the Democrats have converted them to Protected Wetlands, the EPA won't let you.
You mean like he got Congress to open up offshore areas and ANWR for drilling? He removed the executive prohibition on offshore drilling and Congress responded by trying to make the drilling ban permanent on 97% of the offshore oil.
How about making the "Bush tax cuts" permanent?
Or wire tapping calls from known or suspected foreign terrorist?
Or tracking terrorist funding through banks?
Or passing the Federal Marriage Amendment?
Those are just highlights. And now with Reed and Pelosi running Congress, they refuse to take actions they know are the right actions because they don't want President Bush to get credit!
Some of the items I just mentioned are even things you cheered about. Bush always got his way? Not even close.
"taxation in the name of "fairness" comes from. What do you call it?"
I call it good capitalism. Socialism? Marxism? And you guys give me crap about words having meanings. You get to make up whatever you want to suit your ideology...especially when it has been thoroughly proved to not work.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that socialism is the ONLY other alternative. Solutions to our current crisis are not going to come easy and I don't think going to a FDR style of government now will help either. I'm not even sure I have the answer but I have seen the results of what happens with a fundamentalist approach to the free market.
I'd like to see some serious reflection on all of your parts as to how laissez faire failed us here.
I'm not even sure I have the answer but I have seen the results of what happens with a fundamentalist approach to the free market.
It's refreshing for you to admit you don't have a pat answer. Please do so more often.
However, you have not seen a "fundamentalist" or purist or whatever approach to the free market. Freddie and Fannie were govt creations. AIG and the securities/banking companies operated under considerable regulation (and not all regulation is bad). And lastly, a truly free market is not one the federal govt jumps into to save failing businesses.
I call it good capitalism...You get to make up whatever you want to suit your ideology.
Such as "good capitalism"?
capitalism: An economic system built upon the profit motive. Capitalism depends upon private individuals or companies investing money in order to make profits.
You take socialist behavior - which it is - and declare it to be "good capitalism" (it has almost no relation to capitalism) and then say we're inventing meanings.
Are you ready yet to admit that capitalism has proven itself better than socialism, anywhere it's been practiced?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/09/dissent-scoundrels-taxes-and-patriotism.html (23 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Didja see this comparison of the McCain & Obama tax plans?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/calculate-your.html
The graphic on the bottom is telling.
McCain: less tax for everyone!
Obama: Soak the rich!
C'mon guys we have already been through this. It's true that the wealthy pay a large dollar amount but overall they pay less in tax then they ever did.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2008/08/hallelujah.html
There are links throughout to back it all up.
I would also point to this article...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer
To say that the rich would be "soaked" is flat out wrong. Bear in mind, this article is two years old and I find some of the things Krugman discussed to be eerie...given what has happened this week which, btw, has been conspicuously absent from this week's topics.
It's true that the wealthy pay a large dollar amount but overall they pay less in tax then they ever did.
Mark, how much is "enough"?
My short answer - there will never be enough. How can they achieve something they can't define?
Yay! Mark's back from vacation!
I blame it on the scoundrel-rich who pay the higher patriotism-tax.
We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people...
What's this "put it back" business? That implies the money was there in the first place, which it couldn't have been if it's coming from wealthier people.
But more to the point... why do they want to raise taxes on the wealthy? Because they're SOCIALISTS. They'll couch it in whatever terms they think are the most expedient, e.g. patriotism. But what it comes down to is that it's not fair that some people have more than others.
From the April 16 Democratic debate:
GIBSON: You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Mark, how much is "enough"?
I think Obama's current plan is enough. I also think that Obama is going to be a more responsible spender based on these plans. Remember, he wants to keep most of the Bush tax cuts in place, reduce estate tax, and introduce a slew of other tax cuts to students, seniors, and low income earners. He's going to have to re-structure the way government spends because he is going to be cutting taxes.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Simid=266
There is a lot of information in this link.
Sarah, from the link below.
"The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money."
http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm
The Treasury Report estimates losses could be between 60 and 80 billion dollars in revenue.
BTW, Your very quote from the debate is mentioned at the beginning with a good explanation of what is actually happening.
Mark -- That's not the point at all. Look at Obama's response. He didn't challenge the assertion that lower tax rates generate more revenues, he said it was about fairness. He's a socialist.
...and introduce a slew of other tax cuts to students, seniors, and low income earners...
In other words, to people who don't really pay taxes in the first place. Geez, when I was a student, I looked forward to tax season, because it meant I got to cash in. What's going to happen after Obama's "fair" tax cuts? Will these people get even bigger "rebates" from taxpayers' pockets?
The Bush tax cuts make sense, because the people who are paying the most are getting the biggest breaks. And yet the rich, who according to the figures Kevin posted shoulder the vast majority of the burden, are villified. I'll never understand the dark envy that preys on the leftist soul.
I also think that Obama is going to be a more responsible spender based on these plans.
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
"He's a socialist."
Sarah, please stop. My head hurts.
"The Bush tax cuts make sense..."
That's why he is going to make most of them permanent.
"the dark envy that preys on the leftist soul."
Now my head hurts even more. Please read the Krugman article and the link to my blog with all of the data.
Unix, right. But who is going to be running the country..him or Congress? Bush sure as heck runs it now. He's gotten everything he's ever wanted.
"He's gotten everything he's ever wanted."
I see Markadelphia has a new tactic. He wants us to laugh ourselves to death.
…oh the pain! …
Yay for the pantywaists Demcrats in Congress!
Bunch of spineless sad sacks, when the dumbestest President evar can control them without Dick 'Shot-em-in-the-back' Cheney's eviiil mind plotting eviiil deeds to do unto the weak and hapless Democrats. Unless he has been plotting to shoot them in the back, and they know it!
Screw having a majority! Their goal, clearly, is to see how low their popularity can drop by working their darnedest to pass absolutely worthless stuff, like renaming park names to something more in vogue with the latest PC styles and a new appreciate somebody or other day.
Shockingly, I'm almost pleased with the absolutely worthlessness of Congress. If they'd act like this all the time, pissing their time away trying to make sure they don't hurt anyone's feelings (except for the Christians, screw them) and can't cobble a bill together to save a polar bear, then let's keep voting in the cream of cream of the dumb, which is a hot contest between the Democrats, the Lefties (not fair, too much overlap) and a good swath of the Republicans.
They way the Deomcrats have quickly made Congress into a body of no great import almost astounds me, but then I read Marky-mark's, ah, 'comments' and then it is so much more clear.
I should have said...He's gotten everything he's ever wanted with a Congress that acted little more like cheerleaders, pushing through bill after bill that Bush dupes wrote.
Ed, show me exactly where and how Bush has been blocked the last eight years. On every major issue, he was won the day.
"Bush sure as heck runs it now." HAhahahahahahahahahahahah! There is no Harry Reid and no Pelosi - the bill to gut earmarks and show who benefits wasn't prevented by Harry Reid, it was Bush! No billions of dollars worth of earmarks contained in a separate, unpublished committee report were protected by Harry. No it's all Bush all the time!
You can't drain the swamp when the Democrats have converted them to Protected Wetlands, the EPA won't let you.
"You can't drain the swamp when the Democrats have converted them to Protected Wetlands, the EPA won't let you."
Brilliantly stated, DirtCrashr!
Yes, socialist, Mark. Obama is a socialist. Marxist, even. That's where taxation in the name of "fairness" comes from. What do you call it?
And, good grief. Krugman? You think I should read Krugman to change my mind that leftists are driven by envy?
And, good grief. Krugman? You think I should read Krugman to change my mind that leftists are driven by envy?
My thought exactly! Well said, Sarah! Well said!
Mark,
You mean like he got Congress to open up offshore areas and ANWR for drilling? He removed the executive prohibition on offshore drilling and Congress responded by trying to make the drilling ban permanent on 97% of the offshore oil.
How about making the "Bush tax cuts" permanent?
Or wire tapping calls from known or suspected foreign terrorist?
Or tracking terrorist funding through banks?
Or passing the Federal Marriage Amendment?
Those are just highlights. And now with Reed and Pelosi running Congress, they refuse to take actions they know are the right actions because they don't want President Bush to get credit!
Some of the items I just mentioned are even things you cheered about. Bush always got his way? Not even close.
And you wonder why we don't respect you…
Ed, show me exactly where and how Bush has been blocked the last eight years. On every major issue, he was won the day.
And here I thought Bush was a Bible-guided, divisive moron.
Who'd have thunk he would outthink all the geniuses in Congress?
Or - did he create consensus and bring people together?
It's true that the wealthy pay a large dollar amount but overall they pay less in tax then they ever did.
You're right M, we have been through this - and you continue to spout what has been proven false. Maybe if you pray real hard God will make it true.
"taxation in the name of "fairness" comes from. What do you call it?"
I call it good capitalism. Socialism? Marxism? And you guys give me crap about words having meanings. You get to make up whatever you want to suit your ideology...especially when it has been thoroughly proved to not work.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that socialism is the ONLY other alternative. Solutions to our current crisis are not going to come easy and I don't think going to a FDR style of government now will help either. I'm not even sure I have the answer but I have seen the results of what happens with a fundamentalist approach to the free market.
I'd like to see some serious reflection on all of your parts as to how laissez faire failed us here.
I'm not even sure I have the answer but I have seen the results of what happens with a fundamentalist approach to the free market.
It's refreshing for you to admit you don't have a pat answer. Please do so more often.
However, you have not seen a "fundamentalist" or purist or whatever approach to the free market. Freddie and Fannie were govt creations. AIG and the securities/banking companies operated under considerable regulation (and not all regulation is bad). And lastly, a truly free market is not one the federal govt jumps into to save failing businesses.
I call it good capitalism...You get to make up whatever you want to suit your ideology.
Such as "good capitalism"?
capitalism: An economic system built upon the profit motive. Capitalism depends upon private individuals or companies investing money in order to make profits.
You take socialist behavior - which it is - and declare it to be "good capitalism" (it has almost no relation to capitalism) and then say we're inventing meanings.
Are you ready yet to admit that capitalism has proven itself better than socialism, anywhere it's been practiced?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>