Bring It On!

Thought Of The Night? Taxes and Income

September 18th, 2008 | by Cranky Liberal |

How come it’s OK to let real wages for workers fall 3% this year under the GOP economy, but not OK to raise taxes on the rich 3%? Doesn’t make sense to me. If the workers in this country can survive making less money why do rich people scream that it will be disasterous if the wealthy pay the level of taxes they did a few years ago? Anyone care to explain that logic? I seem to recall they were doing pretty damn good back then too - that’s why they were rich.

 If cutting taxes for the rich is supposed to trickle down to the poor, would some please tell the rich to do a better job? It doesn’t seem to be working very well.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 9 Responses to “Thought Of The Night? Taxes and Income”

  2. By admin on Sep 18, 2008 | Reply

    tried to Digg but they were having issues.

  3. By steve on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    Taxes and income are two different things. Someone making 250K a year may be paying 4-5 times what someone pays a year at 40K. Shouldn’t it all be more equal? Also by your rational, the American worker makes 3% less. Wouldn’t be true that someone making 250K a year is also making 3% less too? Afterall, most people that make 250K and up year are American workers too.

    The reality is, you should be bitching about how much wasteful spending our government does and that they should lower spending 3% to coincide with the American worker making less. But you won’t.

  4. By manapp99 on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    Since the “rich” are the primary employers, if you raise taxes on them 3% it is far LESS likely that real wages will go up than if you lower taxes on them.

    If the company you work for has less profit due to higher taxes there is less to spend for overhead. Labor is typically the highest overhead so there will be less money to spend on labor or benefits. Unless they raise prices. If all companies raise prices to meet the higher cost created by raising taxes you get inflation. Inflation will hit the poor and middle class the hardest.

    Taxing the rich is taxing the producers. You should read Atlas Shrugged.

    Steve is right. The best thing the government can do for everyone rich, poor or middle class is clean up their mess. Cut down on redundant programs. Streamline paperwork. Chase down waste and fraud. Let states and local governments keep the money closer to the taxpayers.

    This way EVERYONE could get a tax cut which would stimulate the economy and create more jobs.

  5. By Liberal Jarhead on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    Clarification: the original post said that WORKERS are making 3% less. People making $250K incomes are seldom folks who punch a clock and happen to get paid $125 an hour - they are people whose income is from other sources, like investments, and they haven’t taken that 3% hit, their share of our national wealth has grown drastically. The economic rationale for their being asked to pay a larger proportion of taxes is that - beyond the philosophy that those of us who are better off should help those who are struggling - taxes pay for infrastructure and government services, and those other-than-work kinds of income make a much greater use of those services and infrastructure. For example, the energy industry - and its investors - piggyback off the publicly-subsidized power-distibution infrastructure. No one is saying they shouldn’t, just that they need to pay their real fair share.

    The problem with manapp’s argument is that the corporations who make up the bulk of employers are not the producers, their employees are, and the employers don’t typically spend increases in their bottom line by raising the pay and benefits of their workers. To see that, just look at the record of per-worker productivity compared to per-worker pay and benefits since 1980. Productivity has gone up and up, and with it employer revenues, while worker compensation has slowly eroded when inflation has factored in; meanwhile, the income and share of American wealth of the rich has more than doubled.

    Government cleaning up waste and fraud is indeed important. The thing is, waste and fraud have nearly all been in favor of big business, and have also grown massively since 1980.

    Obama’s plan will give a tax cut to 4 out of 5 American households, including just about every “worker” and “producer.” The people who will have to take up the slack are the ones who have been getting an increasing free ride from the rest of us since 1980.

    The simplistic, juvenile philosophy behind Atlas Shrugged, pure libertarianism, is one that denies the morality of the social contract and asserts an ‘everyone for himself’ ethic. Not surprising, since Ayn Rand was in her personal life a thoroughly dishonest and amoral person whose pseudo-philosophy of ‘freedom’ was a thinly masked excuse for her own rejection of accountability to, and betrayal of, the people in her life.

    At the social level, that is a recipe for a society controlled by a tiny minority of the extremely rich and powerful, who use that power to tilt the playing field farther than it already is in their own favor and to exploit everyone else. Under that kind of system, there would be no such thing as public education, public health, or for that matter public law enforcement, fire departments, or other services. If you want to see that kind of society in its purest form, look at feudal Europe. It’s also a recipe for instability, because in a society like that, there’s no way for a substantial middle class to sustain itself, and the middle class is the main guarantor of social stability - you have to have a majority of people who have enough to lose to have a stake in the status quo unless you want to see either total oppression or frequent revolutions.

  6. By steve on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    Bull LJ… It is possible for two wage earners to make 125K or more each especially here in California, where there isn’t a budget yet because of the Democrats… but that is another topic.

    Stocks took a huge hit earlier this week and have all year so people that have investments in general are losing money this year.

    And here is the other thing. Cranky talks about wage earners being down 3% and why the rich just can’t pay more. Well, 3% isn’t just three percent. If someone’s taxable income is 250K they may be earning 300-400K. The difference could be legitimate tax write-offs like home mortgage, small business expenses and other stuff. So the reality is a 400K gross earner may only pay 7,500 more in takes which is really an under 2% compared to gross, plus the 3% they lost at 5%. Why do you want to punish them for 5%?

    It’s kind of offensive LJ to say that those who rose through the ranks of a minimum wage employee to management with a big salary got a free ride. Nothing is free in this world unless you are on welfare.

  7. By Chris Radulich on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    The reality is, you should be bitching about how much wasteful spending our government does and that they should lower spending 3% to coincide with the American worker making less. But you won’t.

    The problem is not government wasteful spending. The problem is that you conservatives keep screaming that you want a huge military, borders guarded, victory in Iraq, and cops of varieties. However you don’t want to pay for it. Grow up there is no free lunch inspite of what reagan said.

  8. By steve on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    Remind me to use that argument Chris when you guys bitch and complain about free health care for everyone (including the rich).

  9. By Chris Radulich on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    Once again it is only the republicans and conservatives who are so out of touch with reality to think of it as free. As I’ve stated before I expect my taxes to go up. I happen to think that the country and people are worth it.

  10. By steve on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    Well there is the difference between you and me Chris. I pay for my health care through my work. I don’t want the government to raise my taxes to pay for it instead. Why is that such a problem for liberals the grasp? I do not want to give more money to the government than I already have regardless if I make 40K a year or 100K a year. I came into the system paying taxes, I don’t want the rules to change. No one stops the government from spending. No one in the government balances the budget. Look at California it took 81 days to get a budget compromise and Arnold was still going to veto it. The state of California has a tax shortfall and no one wants to take less because of it… not the teachers, the police officers or government employees… they all want more money and there isn’t any. I don’t want my health care to depend on my government in case there is a shortfall like this, period. That should freak you out!!! Canada has had as much as a 22 month wait to get an MRI. I have had 5 in 2 years because I asked for them… I would hate to see my government budget me out of prescription drugs, treatment or anything. I am a 34 year old guy in good health despite chronic pain… I want to pay for shit fair and square. It’s my health.

Post a Comment