world

U.S. House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high

71 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

The tax increase would be limited to the top 1.2% of earners — families that make more than $350,000 a year.

these are the same 1.2% who pay the majority of taxes already... well at least 0bama(min.$400K/yr) and company are included... though I imagine certain "government" employees will find a way around having to pay...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama broke a pledge? Well at least it hits the rich. Wonder if this will make the Libs happy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack the Wealth Spreader strikes again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let us diiiiiig real deep and find out what the real numbers are;

Q:What percent of taxes does the top 1 percent pay and what percent of the income do they make?

A:The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income.

As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including:

38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes

4.0 percent of federal social insurance taxes (Social Security and Medicare)

58.6 percent of corporate income taxes (indirectly, through stock ownership)

5.5 percent of federal excise taxes (on such things as gasoline, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and telephones.)

The share of taxes paid by different income levels have changed over time.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html

Hm, now that was as of 2005. The top 1% paid more taxes but got more of the pie.

hereandthere at 08:00 AM JST - 16th July The tax increase would be limited to the top 1.2% of earners — families that make more than $350,000 a year. these are the same 1.2% who pay the majority of taxes already... well at least 0bama(min.$400K/yr) and company are included... though I imagine certain "government" employees will find a way around having to pay...

The term majority means that they would have to pay over 50% of all taxes but that is just hooey. This has been a far right winger battle cry but the facts are just not there.

Facts are the killer of far right wing arguments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The last thing Congress should be doing is punishing small businesses that create a majority of the jobs in this country"

That's the Democrats for you!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A tax hike during a major recession! JFK is turning over in his grave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Facts are the killer of far right wing arguments.

Not if they just ignore them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GJDailleult at 10:13 AM JST - 16th July Facts are the killer of far right wing arguments. Not if they just ignore them.

That is so bloody true. When it comes to taxes the far right put on their blinders and follow the loudest voice. That voice is usually some fat rich far right winger! LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder what Joe the plumber thinks about this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder how this is going to affect us living overseas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Awww man, here we go again.... back to paying over 40% when including state income taxes....

What incentive is there to try to earn more money if it just keeps getting chomped away and wasted on bailouts of crap companies like Chrysler and GM?

Why can't we just have a system where everyone is taxed at the same rate?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We need to start are the top and tax the Federal Reserve shareholders -that pay no tax, and work our way down. All income must be declared, no more off-shoring for the rich or corporate, close the loopholes and simplify tax law.

Real change is needed, but I like what I see from Obama. =Eventually the tax rates will go down.

Buy back the Federal Reserve also (we have the option) -never made any sense having a 3rd party as a Central Bank.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is the same bunch who received $4Trillion from george bush the first term.

These 1.2% of the population is the small business owner? The republicans cry "the small business owners" but they really don't mean it. It's the big guys who they are beating their chests for.

Small businesses can join together and get rates much better than they can right now. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

**Kwaabish- "What incentive is there to try to earn more money"

I've never in my life met anyone who would give up on having more money because it would be taxed at a higher rate. Would you give up a raise just because you will be taxed at .5% more? Ridiculous.

"Why can't we just have a system where everyone is taxed at the same rate?"

Because taking x% tax from someone who makes $20K a year is far more punishing than taking the same x% tax from someone who makes $2 mil a year. Flat tax rates are inherently unfair.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Katsu,

I knew several, when the their 4% salary raise would have resulted in a 5% income tax raise (31% to 36%). Eventually, they figured on a percentage raise that did not result in going up a tax bracket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK OK I will volunteer to become an american, pay me $1,000,000/year & I will glady pay the new taxes, I will make the sacrifice since so many richie rich types dont seem to want, again allow me, I will do the honourable thing for you all!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

let's lose the personal income tax, that would be fair.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Katsu, I knew several, when the their 4% salary raise would have resulted in a 5% income tax raise (31% to 36%). Eventually, they figured on a percentage raise that did not result in going up a tax bracket.

They should have just given more money to their IRA, 401k, or other QRP in order to stay in the same bracket. But they didnt because they are not real.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems for Republicans, 'cut taxes' is the only economic mantra they can get their heads around.

But that's what bush did - around the same time as he started a massively expensive war - and we all watched the U.S. deficit spiral out of control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One tax for all = CONSUMPTION TAX.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kapuna, I agree - America is one of the very few countries left that hasn't got consumption tax. Admittedly, once it is introduced, it will never be abolished, but this tax provides an ongoing revenue stream for the government.

Cue howling and teeth gnashing from U.S. conservatives who will rail against introducing or raising taxes but will have no realistic alternatives to increase government revenues.... :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I'd like them to fix a few things on how we pay taxes. For one, why can't I deduct my wife and kid but someone who brings their wife and kid(s) here can? Why can't I at least be able to deduct what I pay in Japanese taxes?

With a program like this, something tells me they are going to go on witch hunts looking for everyone who is making their incomes overseas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are smart ways and not-so-smart ways to work a consumption tax/VAT/GST system.

I think it is best NOT to tax staple food items, womens sanitary products, emergency services, etc. but tax pretty much everything else.

No, it does not have to be overly complex, and yes, people will quickly get used to the new system.

Can anyone remember when, only a few years ago, the Japanese govt. re-jigged the law to force shops to include consumption tax in all prices?

Yes, I had forgotton it too.

That's my point. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip, I take it you live in Japan? Are you double taxes by both governments for a certain portion of your income?

I'm not. I only pay tax to the Japanese government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi, yes, I'm in Japan and I am taxed by both governments. I think you said you were Canadian. I've heard they don't tax you guys outside Canada.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Speaking of which, let me say a few things in regards to what these taxes are suppose to pay for. I would like to see some strict rules applied in the US as we move to nationalized health care. While working for the VA, which is very close to what we are going to get, I so people smoking, way over weight, drinking prolbems, drug problems, but their costs were paid by taxes as they were either retired military from a certian point in time (I believe its not so easy anymore) or they were disabled. Why should we pay for people who are ruining their bodies? This includes mothers who feed their kids junk food. Again, I am not happy about paying for them. I'd like to know how Canadians or Brits feel about their health care and how they feel about such people using health care when they should be taking their fat butts outside and exercising.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparently the Obama government is already holding delicate discusions about introducing a VAT-type tax.

We really need to face some hard facts here:

Without pointing fingers at anyone, the US govt. is $11 trillion in the red.

On one side, conservatives in general are totally against introducing or raising any kind of taxes, as they see it as an afront to the American Dream and the capitalist system, which ironically has completely failed them.

Conservatives also decry raising taxes in a recession - a valid point - and criticize the size and scope of the bush/Obama stimulus packages while - interestingly - sidestepping any discussion about what they think would have happened had these stimulus packages NOT been implemented (here's a hint: glug, glug, glug).

The key point to remember here is that a flailing economy such as America has at this point is not going to experience a growth-led expansion without businesses - the point being that businesses need to keep doing business to be able to pay taxes.

What conservatives don't mention is that had companies like GM not been bailed out, 88,000 GM workers in the U.S. and 235,000 worldwide would have lost their jobs, many world governments would have lost millions in related taxes, and the global economy would be an even worse basketcase than it is now.

Stimulus Packages: 1

Conservatives: 0

To wrap up, I think America is on the right path out of this - but the government needs to raise or introduce more taxes in the near term.

The economy needs a rocket up the a*se and the stimulus packages - no matter how imperfect they may be - is pretty much the only recipe that has a chance to work quickly.

And America is no different from many world governments from Australia to Italy to Britain - all of whom have introduced stimulus packages. Are they somehow all wrong and your plan of having the US government sit on its hands and do absolutely nothing is somehow smarter?

A consumption tax should be introduced in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong - "I'd like to know how Canadians or Brits feel about their health care and how they feel about such people using health care when they should be taking their fat butts outside and exercising."

ha ha - an excellent question!

I support the introduction of an Idiot Tax system.

Here's how the Idiot Tax system would work:

Massively ramp up tobacco taxes - in Japan, get rid of this 300 yen/pack crap.

Impose taxes on manufacturers that use food or other ingredients that are proven to damage our health - animal fats, coloring, junk foods and other food that contain over a set number of calories. [Imposing taxes at the bottom of the production chain would I believe mitigate the alternative option of raising taxes on potentially thousands of individual products, which would be an administrative nightmare.]

Launch a nationwide advertising blitz telling everyone that if you come down with a diet- or sedentary-lifestyle related disease, you and your family will be billed for it.

Make exceptions for certain people, ie: handicapped people who cannot exercise.

The whole point of the Idiot Tax system is to whack it into peoples' heads that consuming unhealthy food/drinks is a choice that you will pay for, either through higher prices, or no/reduced government heathcare subsidies for any ensuing medical treatment.

I'm still working on the clause about alcohol..... :-)

And yes, I'll admit here and now - my proposals above do sound like government intervention into peoples' lives (I know some conservatives are petrified about this concept, even when the results are beneficial....) - but let's look at the reality:

Average obesity levels in the US is over 60%.

In China, obesity among kids is over 30%,

In India, national obesity rates are around 40%.

And cases of diabetes, cancer and government healthcare costs worldwide are skyrocketing in lockstep.

Conclusion: too many of us are making some real dumb choices about our health. If we can't sensibly manage our own health, some government intervention would not go astray in my book.

Letting people

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The economy needs a rocket up the a*se

A consumption tax should be introduced in the US.

That would be the last thing the economy needs right now.

Sure, you've gotta plug the deficit somehow, but at least wait until the economy is back on its feet.

Consumption taxes are a lazy way of getting people's money, anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Altria - so what are some smart ways to get people' money? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

idiottax.. sushi, I like that! Seriously, my position on this really has been that I really think Americans pay way too many taxes for what we get back in return. Just as much as I think it is wrong to think that to get rich, become a doctor or a lawyer and we can also add politician into that. But, I noticed through the VA, that since the military, and their dependents, politicians and their dependents get a good health care plan paid by taxes while not every fireman, police or emt get any. Oh, don't forget the people in prison get free health care too. I always felt there should be something there, but again through the VA, I have seen people really abusing it. I also got an issue with illegal aliens (unless some how they are paying into) get free health care.

Before we just simply give people health care, they should meet certain requirement, and no kids are not included in this. If they are a few pounds overweight, not a problem, but if they started life as a normal sized person, then no. Also, STDs. If someone is idiot enough to go out and about and not wear a condom, they should foot the entire bill on their own.

So, I don't mind paying into a system, but from what I seen at the VA, we are heading for a disaster and its all going to be paid for by us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

American Personal Income Tax: Really the most funny Tax there is since there is no law for Americans to pay an Income tax (tax based on labor).

The Corporate tax is true however.

=Makes one wonder why the Gov brings in more money from Personal Income than Corporate (about 90% To 10%) where is used to be the exact opposite?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"A consumption tax should be introduced in the US."

From someone who gets skanked for 19.6% of everything he buys privtely, and who gives back 19.6% of everything he sells professionaly, I say you can keep your consumption tax.

It's a disgrace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I support the introduction of an Idiot Tax system.

Here's how the Idiot Tax system would work:

Massively ramp up tobacco taxes - in Japan, get rid of this 300 yen/pack crap.

Impose taxes on manufacturers that use food or other ingredients that are proven to damage our health - animal fats, coloring, junk foods and other food that contain over a set number of calories. [Imposing taxes at the bottom of the production chain would I believe mitigate the alternative option of raising taxes on potentially thousands of individual products, which would be an administrative nightmare.]

Alright I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you have absolutely no prior experience dealing with government collections and how gawd awful it is already and how convoluted and complicated the tax code already is. If you did you'd realize how absolutely ridiculous that idea was along with the consumption tax. Try going to somebody's home, looking them in the flabby face, and tell him that he is behind on his 'calorie tax'. And then there's always those freaks that can eat a few thousand calories a day and look like a bean pole. I've been threatened, chased, and assaulted over a lot of stupid things over the years but getting my beloved accounting self injured because some fat guy has a temper would be a new low.

The solution isn't more taxes, it's less spending, if the federal government cut its budget down to nothing but the military and basic regulatory agencies we could be out of debt in a decade or two. Or try instituting a flat income tax across the board, sure would make my job easier.

And if you really want to control the obesity rates try restricting breeding among people that can't control their eating habits and among stupid people in general. It's morality is questionable but at least it's not my departments responsibility ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion - awesome post - made me chuckle. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"A consumption tax should be introduced in the U.S."

We already have a consumption tax - it's called state sales tax.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Personally I think that the progressive tax rate penalizes entrepeneurs and people who create jobs. Yes the rich should pay their fair share and that's why I beleive in a flat tax. The US tax code is so damn complicated that as a middle class person earning about $70,000 a year and owning a rental property I had to have an accountant to do my taxes. Let's simplify and tax everyone from the first dollar they make with no writeoffs at a 10% or 15% rate. That way it is fair and equal and everyone can do their own taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with the flat tax.

The comsuption tax is simply a user tax. If you're rich and you don't need to buy anything, you don't pay any taxes.

Isn't it a pity that the tax rate will be the same as it was when Ronald Reagan was president. My taxes have been increased while the top 1% of the population has seen tax cut after tax cut. It's about time that it was equalized. This won't do it, but this is closer. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

$70k a year --> After Fed and State/Local Taxes ~$35k (if even that)

=Congrats, under the Obama System you are now classified as "poor" -and you wonder why Joe Da Pumber didn't pay his taxes!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the Japanese health care system is a good system to model a US system after. You pay health insurance to the government based on the previous year's income. Insurance covers about 70% of all health care excluding dentures and eyeglasses. So a person who makes $30K a year with a 3 member household would pay about $170 a month in premiums for 6 months. Not a bad way to go if you ask me. As for all the insensitive comments on heavy people...you really can't assume all people who are overweight got that way from stuffing their faces or being lazy. Try to show some kindness to fellow humans who may not have the same metabolism as you, thyroid problems, or a host of other medical reasons that cause people to be overweight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clinton raised taxes on the rich in 94 and the republicants screamed the world was gong to come to an end, instead the economy boomed and the government budget went into the black for the first time since Carter was President.

The rich made out like bandits under bush getting 80 percent plus of the tax breaks. What Obama is doing is making the system fair again. And for those that claim taxes will prevent business from progressing, that is like saying tassels on a z1000 bike will slow it down to crawl. Last, progressive taxes support democracy and economic well being. That has been proven over and over again in the US and elsewhere.

Joe the Plumber never paid his taxes as he was a tax cheat, as many republicans tend to be.

Obama is coming through on so many fronts now. I can believe now that he will move the USA past the horrible bush failure economy and his useless lost wars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The economic boom in the 1990s had to do with innovation in technology, higher profits due to outsourcing (reduction of production costs), and other factors exceeding the repressive effects of taxes. Taxes are never a positive factor for economic growth. Also, the budget never truly went black, because the U.S. government continued to borrow, increasing the federal debt every single year as it has done after Eisenhower. It's like balancing your checkbook while still borrowing money--it means you are controlling your rate of indebtedness, not preventing it.

Any tax structure must take resources away from the people and give it to the government (and those in authority). Government is a cost-center: it does not actually produce anything. It only reallocates resources to those that the authorities in particular government favors.

The larger a government, the more that it must take from the people in order to support itself. The economist (and social scientist) Mancur Olson wrote that government is like a stationary bandit that steals from people living in an area. It is in its best interest to avoid stealing so much as to reduce the amount that it can steal in the future. Moreover, it is in its own interest to "protect" the people that it steals from. (Think of "protection" rackets.)

It was for such reasons that the Founders of the United States had originally intended that the federal government be as small as practically possible. This would maximize freedom and liberty while providing for essential services (defense and stability). Apparently, the federal government is currently operating under the philosophy of becoming as large as practically possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

those of us who are living abroad, and even though we are already enrolled in our own health care packages in countries we are living will still most likely be required to still pay into this plan, as well as enroll our kids, or suffer getting hit penalties starting from at least $2000.00

that's a lot to pay just for a penalty much less paying into a health care that I'm not going to use.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think raising taxes is never a good thing anytime -- but especially during a grinding recession. We're nearing 10% unemployment, with no end of this recession in sight -- there couldn't be a worse time for tax hikes. On anybody.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It always comes back to the same question - if people are against taxes being raised, where is the money going to come from?

Borrow more? That's idiocy.

Print more? Lowers the value of the currency.

Raise taxes. Carefully. On the rich.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Raise taxes. Carefully. On the rich." I would hardly think the numbers that are being proposed are careful. And, do you think there are really that many rich people to pay for close 400 million people's care, plus immigrants who have just arrived? Tax that man more, and you're going to see a whole lot of charities disappear. When those charties disappear, you'll say you can't believe that such a great cause is not being funded and then push for that to be taxed.

Fix the health care yeah, but this plan - no!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

katsu78-" I've never in my life met anyone who would give up on having more money because it would be taxed at a higher rate."

Kwaabish-"I knew several, when the their 4% salary raise would have resulted in a 5% income tax raise (31% to 36%). Eventually, they figured on a percentage raise that did not result in going up a tax bracket."

Nope. katsu 78 specifically mentioned having more money. If going into a higher tax bracket means you get less money, of course you don't do that. If it means you still get more money, you do it.

But we are not talking about petty pay rises among the middle and lower classes here. We are talking about people who have more money than a small county in the U.S. Believe me, they will be fine and don't need our concern for their well-being. They may really believe they will die without a new BMW, but we know better, or should anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now is not the time to be talking about national health care. Having a super majority makes it tempting, because we don't when that will happen again, but we don't have money to play with. We need to tax the rich a bit more. We also need to reduce federal spending even more than that. The budget surpluses of the Clinton era were great, the trouble is, the budgets were not reduced and a budget surplus is not more money. Its just means we borrowed less than we planned to borrow, and believe me, we borrowed plenty under Clinton before we started paying back. Clinton ended with a debt about the same as he started with, which is cool. But it was a high debt then and junior made it far worse. We are in debt up to our gills, and something has to be done about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe there are a lot of people over reacting to the belief that our President is going to raise taxes on the middle class. If you read his tax plan the only difference is that he is raising the taxes on the very rich.

But whenever the right and the far right pundits yell about the evils of taxation then their people start to jump.

The reason we are in this mess in the first place is that we began two wars and cut taxes. That was stupid to start with. Only a complete fool would ever spend spend spend, while he has less coming in.

Where did the right think they were going to come up with the money if they did not tax the people to pay for the war? Oh yeah the Chinese and Japanese that's right.

How stupid was that?

Now if we really want to end the recession dead in it's tracks. The we should follow what Warren Buffet is proposing. Take a look at what he says and who would you listen to about money matters, Warren Buffet or Rush Limbaugh? Only a fool would listen to Rush.......

Here it is

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31836527

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now let us ask Warren Buffet of what he thinks about President Obama's economic policy......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-schram/warren-buffet-deffends-be_b_195379.html

For those that jump out of their skins when they see the name "huffingtonpost" below is a different site.....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/07/09/warren-buffett-says-second-economic-stimulus-may-be-needed/

Hm who should we listen to Rush, Palin, Newt, O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity or Warren Buffet. I wonder who to ask, hm.....You know I am pretty sure Warren Buffet could buy everyone of those folks if he wanted.

So I am going to take the word of Buffet over those Bobble Heads......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"warren-buffet-says-second-stimulus-may-be-needed"

Well, heck, the first one worked so well, let's do it again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry Sarge, no amount of stimulation will help as long as oil prices hover around 60 dollars a barrel. Therin lies the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is ultimately about reward vs. cost of opportunity. People are investing in areas that give sufficient returns with lower opportunity costs. High energy prices, high labor costs, and high taxes are deterrents as the first two raise the cost of operations and the other lowers the financial benefits. Combined, they makes investment in U.S. manufacturing far less attractive than overseas investment or government bonds. In fact, Goldman Sachs (yes, the same one that required a bailout) made a hefty profit by loaning local and state governments money. Government borrowing takes away from domestic investment and since the governments often raise local and state taxes to pay for the loans, they reduce the incentive for local and state investment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OldGeezer,

the one thing that is clear from your posts is that you are indeed an OldGeezer.

All you tax whiners, explain why the massive tax cuts that bush gave to the rich lead to the near depression we are facing now? Simple question that blows all your selfish and me firster theories out of the water. Or why the greatest boom in the last 25 years occurred under clinton AFTER he raised taxes on the rich in 94.

The answer is that the rich do not matter as they spend in ways that do not really impact macro economics. What matters is how the middle class spends due to their massive numbers and they are who Obama is targeting for tax help. What matters to the republicants is the source of their political funding which is the top 1% of US citizens (they contributed about 90% of the bush campaign funds in 2000 and 2004). The non rich who parrot the free market/trickle down lies of the bush/rove lie factory are the fools who think that one day they will be in the 1%, like joe the plumber. You wont. All you really do is make the already rich richer, as bush proved. The USA gini coefficent in 2006 after the bush tax cuts told hold was the highest ever, even higher than 1929 when the robber barons ran the USA. Look it up you republicants and if you can, learn from the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini_indices_over_time

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OldGeezer at 02:38 AM JST - 18th July Combined, they makes investment in U.S. manufacturing far less attractive than overseas investment or government bonds.

You have made a darn good point as to why we need to tax the rich. What are most investment houses doing with their money? Are they investing it in the United States? No, they are profiting from us. So why not increase their taxes.

If we raise taxes then the federal gov has more money to pay off our war debt. We need to get out of the red or maybe get our heads from under at least. Where else is our government going to get funds unless it taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Where else is our government going to get funds unless it taxes.(?)"

Borrow from China? Print money?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have made a darn good point as to why we need to tax the rich. What are most investment houses doing with their money? Are they investing it in the United States? No, they are profiting from us. So why not increase their taxes.

Why increase or decrease the taxes of anyone? I've always been in favor of an equal, simple, flat tax. A reasonable one not exceeding more than 20% and having that rate locked in place.

If we raise taxes then the federal gov has more money to pay off our war debt. We need to get out of the red or maybe get our heads from under at least. Where else is our government going to get funds unless it taxes.

So... because the government is irresponcible with the money it has to work with those that are either smart, crafty, or skilled enough to keep their jobs must suffer? Its like giving a monkey more bananas and expecting it to do something other than hand you back fists full of feces it has been giving you since you bought it.

There are a few precious things the government is needed for, those being protection, justice, and stability. As soon as it begins to overstep it starts to mess up; the handling of social security, medicare, the postal service, the first stimulas package, and of course the glorious Amtrak. All of which are either loosing money or are unsustainable in their present form. I think it's because congress keeps fancying themselves as business experts, the difference is that a businessman spends his own money while a politican spends someone elses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how dare they! i mean the rich are soo innocent. this is outrageous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, the top 1% of an upper income bracket is classified as a super wealthy family. They could be the patrons or the glitterati like the Helmlesys, the Haliburtons, or the Gilmores(!? Just kidding.) They were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and have chipped in extra cashes for almost 9 years thanks to the tax break since 2000.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This will increase unemployment even further. The rich will wonder what the point of working harder is if they only get to keep 40% of their marginal income.

You can eat the rich - once.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes raise the taxes, they can afford it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The lords of finance at JP Morgan and Goldman are going to make huge bonuses after the US taxpayers saved those companies from financial collapse. They are reporting huge profits now. These are the people, average income of $750k (yes average), who need to pay for reformed healthcare and other pressing needs of the USA right now. They made out like bandits from the bush give to the rich tax breaks and bush bailout so now its time to pay up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since the rich can be expected to use their money to buy political influence, they will simply pool their resources and get the Dems out, first by chipping away at their majority in congress next year and then by grabbing back the presidency in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is absolutely insanity. Why a tax hike on ANYBODY is being considered during a grinding recession is totally beyond me.

An across-the-board tax cut for ALL businesses and individuals would get our economy moving again almost instantly. It would create more wealth which could then be taxed, which could in turn be used to fund all those things that Obama wants to fund, but for which we don't even have the money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My brother works for the Chamber of Commerce for a major US West Coast city. He tells me that the business community in that city -- and, presumably, the business community of every other city -- has ZERO confidence in Obama or the Democrat Congress.

The current Democrat government are a bunch of ideologues who are making decisions based on ideology rather than effectiveness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, we saw how effective the Bush years with the GOP-controlled Congress were.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yeah, we saw how effective the Bush years with the GOP-controlled Congress were"

The economy performed remarkably well during most of the Bush years, even with 9/11 happening 8 months into his presidency. Look it up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Performed remarkably well for the thieves who ended up reigning misery down on those who do an honest day's work for a living.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now the REAL scourge of Obamaism is appearing, in its true colors. Tax, Tax and more Tax! Yippee - bring it on! Serves you right, you Americans who voted him (and them) into office!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of the rich didnt vote for obama, it was the workers who have been screwed over for the last 8 years by the rob from the middle class and give to the rich republicants. Only the rich did well under bush, the rest of americans saw them incomes decline, their houses collapse in value due to greed that bush allowed to run rampant and the their stock holidings vanish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What many "tax the wealthy" proponents fail to understand is that the wealthy will retain their tax loopholes and gain financial opportunities by lobbying politicians. It is natural selection: the most opportunistic and exploitative are the ones that will continue to succeed. For example, Goldman Sachs has been heavily represented in every recent administration (including this one), has received bailout money, made a profit loaning said money to local and state government, and stands to make billions more through the proposed cap-and-trade / carbon tax bill. The wealthy that provide jobs and economic growth on the capital/industrial side are going to be encouraged to move more and more production overseas, because those who keep production in the United States are going to lose out.

In the 1990s, with the signing of NAFTA, normalization of trade relations with China, and increasing of taxes, U.S. capital began moving out of country in vast amounts. In its place were temporary consumption-side jobs. This transfer of capital created huge profits for companies, but it basically set the stage for recession: real GDP exceeded potential GDP; consumption-side grew while capital-side shrank. Who really lost out? The American citizen-taxpayer. Who really won? Government and the investment banks.

Taxes and other fees are used to support government, but it must not be forgotten that it also influences decision-making in a global marketplace. If taxes are primarily targeted at income, it encourages capital-side flight. If taxes are targeted at economically static wealth, it encourages investment in capital assets. Taxes should be aimed at encouraging the creation of capital-side jobs in the United States, not encouraging capital flight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites