Is Wealth the Newest “Sin” Tax
17 July 2009 4:59 am by guyski
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25029.html
Another flippant remark from Nancy Pelosi
“We have to have a revenue stream to ensure the bill will be paid for,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday morning. “If we don’t need it, we can use that money to pay down the deficit.”
The speaker acknowledged her willingness to alter that equation, but her admission that the surtax could generate excess revenue, beyond the costs of the overhaul, may complicate negotiations with those fellow Democrats who don’t like it.
Interesting discussions concerning “Paying the Price” for health care.
Some comments concerning taxes.
The “Sin Taxes”; such as, smokes, booze or whatever. It is noble to justify these taxes as helping people to quit or reduce their vices (which will actually achieve that for some people.) But, these taxes are easy taxes to implement.
Politicians couldn’t care less about a persons smoking and drinking, just the tax. If they raises these taxes higher, good. More revenue.
A sidenote: Remember the big tobacco settlement the states received? The states complaining about the cost to their health systems because of smoking. Research how that money was spent by some of the states. Surprising.
But there is always a balance. To high a tax, lower the revenue. Even today a person can buy their smokes and booze tax free, it not that hard to do, might not be legal, but easy.
As for this surtax on the wealthy, even if it was 10 percent or 15 percent, instead of the proposed 5.4 it still won’t be enough. The more money the more spending, it is really quit laughable to guesstimate cost saving measures.
There really is no political courage to cut services / entitlements. Which needs to be done.
One more comment about taxing the wealthy to solve all problems. Still not enough money. Even when the top tax bracket was around 90 percent, the first tax bracket was around 20 percent.
One last curiosity question: What exactly is a “Mexican gentleman” who mows the lawn each week?
This post was submitted by guyski.
No tags for this post.
He’s a man named V. Trejo.
Your question, I believe refers to this post I made yesterday. Perhaps I made a poor analogy, but he was the first person I thought of when reading the post about the rich getting rich because of their hard work. V. worked to get his family to where he thought he could better provide for them. He learned English and made certain his family did too. Education is a priority for them. That was in reaction to this line from Taylor’s post:
“The wealthy people I know started from nothing and got where they are by long hours, sacrifice and by earning it. Besides, they are already paying plenty.” Taylor Marsh”
“djjl says:
16 July 2009 at 3:42 pm
I don’t know a single “rich” or monetarily “wealthy” person who works as hard as the Mexican gentleman who mows our lawn each week.”
V. is a legal resident and proudly of Mexican descent. He and the other gentlemen who work with him work long, hard hours six days per week. I met him after he left a flyer in our door about doing various landscaping and mowing.
He’s got a nice small business going and has invested in a truck and equipment. While where he is is not financially rich, he’s done all the other things to improve his family’s place.
I admire him. I also know he “started from nothing and got where” he is “by long hours, sacrifice and by earning it.” He is also paying plenty – certainly plenty compared all the breaks and loopholes available to the really rich.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
“Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.”
snip
“Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed. ”
snip
“Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.
He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?” ‘
“There really is no political courage to cut services / entitlements. Which needs to be done.”
How about first we cut the corporate welfare that benifits the rich? Increase taxes on the rich? STOP these foreverwars and SLASH the wasted spending on military junk that benifits the rich.
NO, your first responce is to “to cut services / entitlements.”
“One last curiosity question: What exactly is a “Mexican gentleman” who mows the lawn each week?”
Perhaps it is a referance to the rich not hesitating to use immigrant, much of it illegal, labor? Ya think?
Or was your snarky comment/question an attempt to make some sort of point?
djjl we cross posted and I hadn’t read your post from yesterday.
Good morning secular
I kind of wondered about the question myself. I wasn’t sure what was so difficult about what I said. Perhaps I didn’t make it clear in context. Sort of a free thought response. As I said, he came immediately to mind.
I’m still trying to resolve cervical vertebrae problems and my husband twisted his back and decided it would be a bit much for him to mow this sloping in every direction yard. That’s about the time V. dropped his flyer by. I think I’ve learned a lot from him. He’s a manual laborer, a man who takes pride in the honor of his labor, a man of great dignity – someone who I think we’ll continue to learn from.
Now, I’ll be more direct. He’s a man of Mexican heritage (sort of like African-American except that he’s not an American citizen at this time), he’s a gentleman, and I came to know him because he mows are lawn weekly.
Sorry for the confusion.
“our”lawn
My comment was more directed to guyski and his snarky inflection.
By the way, due to kidney surgery and ongoing issues I’m paying an African American gentleman(I know this because when I asked where he was from after hearing his beautiful accent and english diction he proudly told me he was originaly from Kenya but came here and became a citizen in “the best country in the world”)to clear out the debris from the construction of my studio.
Secular
I knew you were responding to guski
I just wanted to be clear in what I said. Understanding what I say and what I have not said seems to be difficult around here in the last day. Just trying to be a bit clearer.
I actually figured out that my gardener makes a pretty damn good income. Calculting 10 houses a day x 5 days a week x $80 per month =
$48,000 per year.
and I happen to know he makes more than that from extra weekend landscaping projects.
So my Mexican gardener is a capitalist success story… plus he helps me practice my Spanish over the roar of the mower
____
p.s.
I love (sarcasm) all this “defend the exploited and misunderstood rich people” posts going around the last two days.
quite humorous while inscrutable.
djjl – Thanks for the answer. Nothing wrong with asking a question, even if it’s snarky or not. I live in a upper-middle income, heavy democratic area and everyone has their mexican, honduran, guatemalan, etc. gardener, house cleaner, handyman etc. But here, they are all undocumented / illegal or whatever the correct word is. My problem is they (the democratic employees) are avoiding taxes in their own way.
(the democratic employees)?
Frankly I don’t much care if people working for other people are documented or not unless the ones employing them have made a politicol carreer out of screaming about illegal aliens. As far as I’m concerned unless you have some relatives living on a reservation somewhere you’re ALL illegal aliens. I’m all in favor of open borders. People who come here are looking to better themselves and their families. What could be more American then that?
Yes. YES. YES! Brava guyski.
For the umpteenth time, this isn’t about tax rates.
It’s about turning to the rich to pay for health care, or the deficit, or –FILL IN THE BLANK OF WHAT WE CONTINUE TO SPEND–.
Pelosi really stepped in it with her comment, which was flippant, as well as revealing. For some reason people think a wealthy person’s money is there to tax at will to pay for whatever we want. It’s absurd.
p.s. I love (sarcasm) all this “defend the exploited and misunderstood rich people” posts going around the last two days.
quite humorous GeoT
100% agree, GeoT
Perhaps this site can be the origin of the all new NAAPP ? (National Association for the Advancement of Priviledged People).
Whatcha think Taylor?
For some reason people think a wealthy person’s money is there to tax at will to pay for whatever we want.
No. Some people simply feel they’ve been getting multi-breaks in the last decade and would like to see them return to the percentages they paid back in Ike’s day.
And by the way – that would still only be a *part* of the overall solution. ALL the alternative methods to raise money are needed as well. This is not a debate as to ‘which’ method is the solution.
When people start from nothing and build their lives through hard work, privilege has nothing to do with it. Though I guess most of you think the wealthy = Bernie Madoff. Ignorance is bliss, baby.
Hey, but you all aren’t interested in serious debate. Blaming the rich is your balm.
Knock yourselves out. I’m not one of the rich or privileged, though I’m also not willing to think they owe me health care because Democrats, including many of you, can’t come up with another solution.
But it does illustrate the bankruptcy of the the level of serious debate on how to actually pay for health care.
I’m with Taylor on this topic. Do most of you know that a very small percentage of Americans pay over 70% of the taxes in this country? It’s even higher in my lovely home state of California.
Let me add, that we’re also not talking about the greed @ Goldman Sachs in this conversation. This began from a very targeted article I wrote about health care and how to pay for it, while getting it passed.
It’s quite telling that it became the jumping off point for sharing grievances many of you have against The Rich. If “The Rich” are corporations like Goldman Sachs, well, I’m all in. But this is also where some of you die hard, original Obama supporters will have to do some soul searching, as well as look what is happening under Obama’s watch.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama wants to move on from holding Bush-Cheney, but especially Cheney, accountable, while his minions pontificate in public.
Hypocrisy rules right now.
Knock yourselves out. I’m not one of the rich or privileged, though I’m also not willing to think they owe me health care because Democrats, including many of you, can’t come up with another solution.
You obviously didn’t read the post above yours, Taylor.
As I said – it’s only a ‘part’ of the solution.
And the number of ‘wealthy’ who started out with “nothing” is a VERY small percentage of the ‘wealthy’ – and most of THEM are in professional sports or the music industry (the luck of being born with skills or physique). Surely you realize that.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with repealing the Bush tax cuts to help pay for health care seeing the cuts shouldn’t have been made in the first place. But that aside, then how do we pay for health care? I’m not opposed to taxing soft drinks, for example. Any ideas?
Most of them are in sports or music industry??????
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama wants to move on from holding Bush-Cheney, but especially Cheney, accountable,
Yes, we need to immediately do everything we can to further alienate those on the right and divide this country even more. Prosecuting Cheney would tickle me to death – but it would do absolutely nothing to undo what was done. I think I prefer Obama’s approach. Sorry. Historical writers in the future will take care of Bush/Cheney – and they will not be kind.
kris says:
17 July 2009 at 11:11 am
Most of them are in sports or music industry??????
Yes. Most of the “newly rich” are in that area.
kris, the definition was ’started with nothing’. That’s the newly rich – and the easiest route to riches are those two categories. Unless, of course, you think starting with $100 on the stock market is producing those?
Also – the giant corps like WalMart have almost killed the concept of new (family) businesses rising to power. It’s a damned shame.
Oh please pmichael. The majority of athletes do not make the salaries of the Kobe Bryants, Manny Ramirez, etc.
In addition it is awfully hard to define what constitutes rich these days. As I recall during election season the bar was all over the place.
Oh please pmichael. The majority of athletes do not make the salaries of the Kobe Bryants, Manny Ramirez, etc.
Ah kris. That’s simply naive. Please look up the “minimum salary” figures for the NBA, NFL, and baseball. And Manny Ramirez makes more for one at-bat than a gradeschool teacher makes for an entire year.
That’s right he does. I said the majority of athletes DO NOT MAKE what a Ramirez makes. In addition, I happene to know something about this pmichael, the work involved for a baseball player to make the major leagues and make decent money is immense. In fact most players never make it past some farm team. It isn’t as easy as most observers think.
And the life of an NFL career is on average 5 years.
kris, your points are quite correct – but they don’t actually argue against my original premise – that most of the ‘newly rich’ are now coming from there and the music industry (assuming you’re ‘talented’). Compare every player in the NFL or NBA to the $200,000 annual figure Joe the Plumber made so famous. Or look at the way those fortunate enough to advance in ‘American Idol’ and what it did for their lives.
kris says:
17 July 2009 at 11:00 am
I’m with Taylor on this topic. Do most of you know that a very small percentage of Americans pay over 70% of the taxes in this country?
To me, much of this thread points out the hypocrisy of some of these arguments. That the wealthy pay more taxes than the poor is one of these red herrings.
The fairness issue is in what percentage of their EARNED INCOMED (IE that they WORK for) is taxed versus the percentage of the income of the poor.
Or all most people for regressive taxation? Mr. Latino Gardener (by the way GeoT, in your calculation, do you live somewhere that gardeners work year round?) is probably paying a much higher percentage of his pay (after business expenses)in income taxes than the very wealthy do.
And, don’t you think passive income (interest, capital gains etc) should be taxed at least as high as income that someone actually shows up, puts effort forth and works for?
The real issue is summed up nicely by the Warren Buffet statement listed here earlier:
From djjl at 8:25 am:
“Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.”
snip
“Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
Taylor Marsh says:
17 July 2009 at 11:02 am
ahhh
it’s the Reagan Democrat rearing her head again…
“The Rich are what make the economy run. They hire and and build businesses and just let them alone and their success will rub off on those they use as floorboards for their empire”
BS
Yes, tax the rich… like everyone else.
The people that complain about taxing the rich are most always—- rich.
Except for Warren Buffet:
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
wait I forgot he’s an Obama supporter he needs to do some “soul searching”
and don’t forget Taylor said recently “be forewarned” about the coming doom in the economy— empty words bordering on wishful thinking
AliceP
Or all most people for regressive taxation? Mr. Latino Gardener (by the way GeoT, in your calculation, do you live somewhere that gardeners work year round?)
____
I didn’t think of that, good point. Yes, I’m on the Cal central coast.
and “jinx” for both of us posting the Buffet quote
GeoT says:
17 July 2009 at 11:38 am
Nice try, but running back to Reagan on this one doesn’t float, especially since the vote was about NATIONAL SECURITY. Hey, but I understand the knee jerk reaction of yours is hard to resist.
And I have no relationship to that quote whatsoever.
Only the ignorant think The Rich aren’t taxed.
..and the soul searching was pointed towards Goldmach Sachs, which does require soul searching since it’s happening on Obama’s watch.
Meanwhile, and yet again, running away from the initial topic, paying for health care, continues.
“The Rich are what make the economy run. They hire and and build businesses and just let them alone and their success will rub off on those they use as floorboards for their empire”
BS GeoT
THANK YOU, GeoT.
BtW – the days of ‘new’ businesses is almost gone. Breaking through the stranglehold of the giant corporations is becoming nearly impossible. Example? Your ‘Pet Store’ is now WalMart – and the only possible competition is the other pet corporations like ‘PetSmart’. Your ‘Toy Store’ is Walmart – and even ‘Toys R Us’ is going down.
Only the ignorant think The Rich aren’t taxed. Taylor
And exactly WHO said THAT, Taylor?
Talk about making up quotes to repudiate.
Nice.
Yeah guys – quoting Buffet doesn’t do it for me. I am not referring to people in his category.
What constitutes rich is my question. As I stated earlier that bar has been all over the place. Define it and tell me what percentage of income tax should be paid.
In addition I vaguely remember a promise made during the campaign that taxes would not be raised on the middle class. You cannot tax soft drinks, cigs, “junk food” etc. and lay claim to not taxing a certain group more. Hypocrisy and lying at it’s finest.
pmichael – what makes the economy run, who creates jobs?
kris says:
17 July 2009 at 11:54 am
Define it and tell me what percentage of income tax should be paid
___
The current House Health Care bill says “over $350,000 per year” (individual)
I’m just a shade under that
The only thing I agree with Ron Paul on is FLAT TAX one page returns.
for everyone… individual taxpayers that is.
kris says: 17 July 2009 at 11:58 am
pmichael – what makes the economy run, who creates jobs?
This is rapidly changing, kris. It used to be that the ‘family’ business had a chance to compete. Today – we’re seeing more and more empty buildings. So today, your answer would be the giant corporations – already in place. Innovation is almost dead.
As I wrote in the 60’s – we are quickly approaching the day when we live ‘here’, and over ‘there’ is The Store.
And pretty soon if you want your lawn mowed, you’ll go see WalMart for an appointment.
I agree with that GeoT. Flat tax would resolve it all. Everyone pays the same amount. What I fear with that though is it wouldn’t raise necessary revenue….oh wait, we’re in that position now.
As for $350,000.00 — I’m really in the shade.
“I love (sarcasm) all this “defend the exploited and misunderstood rich people” posts going around the last two days.
quite humorous while inscrutable.”
It’s just the response has been venomous. Saying things like “Taylor is saying rich people work harder than poor people” The wealthy have no empathy. They cheat and don’t pay their fair share. They don’t work hard.
You’re labeling all “wealthy” people as the above.These accusations hold no truth.
Not me pmichael. I will always mow my own lawn
kris says:
17 July 2009 at 11:54 am
You cannot tax soft drinks, cigs, “junk food” etc. and lay claim to not taxing a certain group more. Hypocrisy and lying at it’s finest.
___
you do understand that those on this thread and yesterday’s that are saying “don’t tax the rich” are advocating higher taxes for “vice” products like soft drinks and cigarettes and booze etc. ?
How about $1.4 billion per year in added revenue if we legalize (and tax) Pot in California?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9P7paNzS32m_gMI8AAEkpvjXNWwD99F7TVO0
GeoT says: 17 July 2009 at 11:59 am
The only thing I agree with Ron Paul on is FLAT TAX one page returns.
You DO realize that would eliminate thousands of jobs, GeoT, right? There is a structure of CPAs and accountants (and corps like H&R) that are making a living on the confusion of ‘income tax’. It’s one of the things I like about Mike Huckabee – but it would leave a LOT of people unemployed.
“Though I guess most of you think the wealthy = Bernie Madoff. Ignorance is bliss, baby.”
Gotta love the media. If you have money you’re evil and swindled it from regular folks. Nothing more.
Taylor Marsh says:
Only the ignorant think The Rich aren’t taxed.
____
I said they’re not taxed at a percentage that is fair based on the entire system—
and I just said it again.
and I’m right.
“How about $1.4 billion per year in added revenue if we legalize (and tax) Pot in California?”
Another great example of eliminating ‘family businesses’. LOL
pmichael says:
17 July 2009 at 12:06 pm
but it would leave a LOT of people unemployed.
____
I actually asked my tax guy about this and he said “he’d manage”
It’s one of those things that needs to be done despite the consequences.
Or at least a major streamlining of the IRS codes so this constant class warfare that now seems to be bleeding into even Democratic politics is done away with.
pmichael says:
17 July 2009 at 12:09 pm
“How about $1.4 billion per year in added revenue if we legalize (and tax) Pot in California?”
Another great example of eliminating ‘family businesses’. LOL
____
from what I understand they are licensing farms to grow for the Medical Pot industry that has become huge in CA. They will have to pay taxes… just like (shhhhh) internet commerce will have to be taxed, eventually.
Yes GeoT I realize those that are advocating a “sin” tax. I think they are wrong.
The tobacco tax of a few years ago that was to be directed to certain education and health programs —- in my county those funds went to build a new office complex for the County Board of Supervisors. It’s outrageous. I don’t trust that any tax will be applied to the intended. Simple as that.
“As for this surtax on the wealthy, even if it was 10 percent or 15 percent, instead of the proposed 5.4 it still won’t be enough.”
As someone mentioned in a previous thread, if we tax soda, booze, and cigs, what else?
the same can be said for the amount of the tax proposed on the wealthy.
If 5% isn’t enough, how about 7%? 10%? 15%?
Is there a place where people are willing to draw the line, or do we have our pitchforks ready, climbing to the castle?
Again, because misquoting has become such a fad around here.
As usual, hyperbole rules when GeoT tries to make a point by incorrectly stating that I said “don’t tax the rich.” I’m against the 5%+ SUR-TAX, which I believe Pelosi revealed is to be used for, um, you know, whatever we need to use it for, hardly a sellable policy prescription, even for those of you who are so hell bent in targeting The Rich to fund –fill in the blank – you choose– here.
Taxing candy, soft drinks, cigarettes, liquor, etc. is an idea I believe whose time has come, IF we’re serious about preventative health measures while implementing universal health care. Kris is by no means the only one who disagrees with me, though I’ve found a lot of agreement with doctors. I also don’t think we have the courage to do it, which is evidenced here by people who’d prefer to lay health care off on The Rich. Hey, I’m not rich, so it won’t impact me. But it’s lousy policy.
As for taxing food products, etc. that are killing us, read “Sugar Blues” and do research on diabetes and obesity with regard to health. Besides, these taxes hit everyone. Maybe if we taxed the food and drink items that are actually killing us we’d think about it every time we choose to eat them. Nah, we’re a no pain, no consequences country, preferring to let China foot the bill. If it makes you feel better, how about no taxes on veggies, which was suggested by a friend yesterday, but also by one of the doctors I’ve been speaking to, if only in jest. But as I also wrote in my article, will bacon be the next thing taxed higher?
Food manufacturers are already weighing in with ads, so not to worry, folks. You may still get your tax on The Rich to pay for health care, though it won’t be enough, which may come back to boomerang on our president and the Democratic majority just in time for 2010.
daubry says:
17 July 2009 at 12:03 pm
“I love (sarcasm) all this “defend the exploited and misunderstood rich people” posts going around the last two days.
quite humorous while inscrutable.”
It’s just the response has been venomous. Saying things like “Taylor is saying rich people work harder than poor people” The wealthy have no empathy. They cheat and don’t pay their fair share. They don’t work hard.
You’re labeling all “wealthy” people as the above.These accusations hold no truth
_____
I never said any of those things. I am only dispelling the myth that the wealthiest pay a “fair share” of their income” It’s not a dollar amount it’s a matter of percentage.
I am not now but once was relatively well off ($200,000 per year) I have a sister who lives in a $4 million dollar mansion in Beverly Hills. I am not making moral judgments about having money, being rich does not make one (necessarily) evil.
But it is a myth that the rich “already pay their fair share” It’s just not true.
Taylor -
I am not one of those for raising taxes on the “rich” (whatever that means anymore) to pay for anything and everything.
My point about raising taxes on soda, cigs, etc. is this — it violates a campaign promise of this President first and foremost. But more importantly I do not believe the revenue raised will be used properly. It never is and Pelosi’s statement confirms that to me, be it a tax on the “rich” or taxes on food items, etc.
If the revenue raised were actually used for the intended purpose then I wouldn’t have opposition to the proposal.
kris says:
17 July 2009 at 12:14 pm
- in my county those funds went to build a new office complex for the County Board of Supervisors. It’s outrageous. I don’t trust that any tax will be applied to the intended. Simple as that.
___
you’re right about that. Local governments often play fast and loose with the easy targeted funds, even Bond money gets diverted. No doubt about it.
You may not have said those things, they have been said in the threads.
“defend the exploited and misunderstood rich people”
So when I say, that many of the wealthy do work hard, have empathy for others, and pay their fair share, well I’m just “”defending the exploited and misunderstood rich people”
GeoT -
I have rental properties. If I chose to sell one of them my capital gains tax would be outrageous. Answer why should I lose almost half of my profit simply because I chose to keep my previous residences and use them as income for retirement?
In addition if I am looking to net a certain amount of income from the sales then I have to sell at a higher purchase price than if I don’t have to pay capital gains at the current rate. That is not helpful to those who may want to purchase a home.
“Besides, these taxes hit everyone.”
BINGO!
As GeoT noted in a previous thread, Universal Health care is about “shared-responsibility”
Well what is more shared: A 5% Sur-Tax on the wealthy or a tax on soda, cigs, and alcohol which a majority (and more) people purchase.
?
secularhumanizinevoluter employer(s) – typo.
kris says:
17 July 2009 at 12:25 pm
Oh, believe me, I got that you’re not; just saying you disagree on the taxes I’ve proposed. Rep. will also use the “any time money goes to the gov. it’s misused” argument, but as a Democrat I still believe it should be done, provided we have regulation.
I think time well spent, instead of continued scattershot attacks on The Rich, is the Goldman Sachs story. I’m pressed for time right now, so let me point you to my friend Peter’s post today:
Obama and the Goldman Fiasco: Is This America Under Democratic Leadership?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/obama-and-the-goldman-fia_b_237589.html
Gotta run. My mom had a stroke last week, her second in 4 years, and spent a few days in the hospital. She’s now in rehab and I try to visit with her every day.
bbl – I hope.
daubry says:
17 July 2009 at 12:31 pm
“Besides, these taxes hit everyone.”
BINGO!
As GeoT noted in a previous thread, Universal Health care is about “shared-responsibility”
Well what is more shared: A 5% Sur-Tax on the wealthy or a tax on soda, cigs, and alcohol which a majority (and more) people purchase.
___
In reality we probably will need both. That’s what happens when this issue was ignored for so many years after it was shot down in what 1993? During Bill C’s admin.
A comparison is the Los Angeles commuter rail. Everyone knew it needed to be built. It had been talked about since I was a kid. All the talk and delays just added to the final and gynormous multi-billion dollar costs.
We procrastinated on Health Care now it’s going to cost allot more to achieve what we’ve all known was vital to accomplish for years.
kris says:
17 July 2009 at 12:34 pm
So sorry about this… hang in there.
kris says:
17 July 2009 at 12:34 pm
___
give her a hug, take care.
daubry says:
17 July 2009 at 12:26 pm
You may not have said those things, they have been said in the threads.
“defend the exploited and misunderstood rich people”
So when I say, that many of the wealthy do work hard, have empathy for others, and pay their fair share, well I’m just “”defending the exploited and misunderstood rich people”
____
okay, granted that was was some sarcasm on my part but it just seems ironic that the rich are somehow being cast as being unfairly called on to pay for part of this Health Plan.
consider this daubry:
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). con’t
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
They have MOST of the money… of course they need to give more of it back.
GeoT, you may find this interesting:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Note that if you go back to 1981, the tax rate on those making $215,000 was 70%
and that was for ‘married filing jointly’. If you were ’single’, you reached the 70% rate if you made $108,000
2009? The TOP percentage is exactly half that __ 35%.
I rest my case.
I do think it’s unfair to put a 5% sur-tax (which probably won’t even be enough) on the wealthy.
Especially is were a) not considering other sources (to be included with or without the tax. and b) telling them “well it will go for whatever we choose”
People are telling me it’s going to cost a lot. And no doubt. But do any of us have numbers or facts in front of us that show the revenue a tax on soda or other goods like that generate?
And Pelosi has the nerve to say “Well use you’re money for whatever we choose. It’s a novel idea, but I like to know what my money would accomplish or go to.
Hey, I know what we can do – tax Goldman Sachs.
“They have MOST of the money… of course they need to give more of it back.”
I’m not denying that. It’s a sur-tax firstly, and secondly the bush tax cuts are supposed to expire? be changed?
I have heard nothing of that recently.
No Jane, the government loves Goldman.
I know that but that’s where the money is. Mountains of it.
I’m having fun daubry.
Well I’ve got my pitchfork ready, and The J train isn’t too far!
daubry says: 17 July 2009 at 1:28 pm
I do think it’s unfair to put a 5% sur-tax (which probably won’t even be enough) on the wealthy.
I see. So you think going to 40% from 35% is “unfair” – even though before Reagan they were paying 70%.
Okay.
I see. So you think going to 40% from 35% is “unfair” – even though before Reagan they were paying 70%.
Okay.
I talking about the specific health-care sur-tax.
You really have fun, twisting what I say.
was*
You were talking about a ‘tax increase’ being “unfair”.
How the Hell is my response “twisting” what you say?
This is a serious question – How do you define wealthy? I think I’ve seen numbers like $250,000 and $350,000 thrown out in the course of the past year. So if we use these numbers to define wealthy are we assuming that these people have been making this kind of money for years and years or what? Not sure I’m making my point. Or are we defining wealthy as people who have millions socked away? I’m only asking because I know people who are in the two brackets I mentioned above but I would not call them wealthy but extremely affluent. What’s the difference between people who have finally made it in their careers, you know have worked themselves up to this kind of income, and those who have been born into it? I just want someone to give me a clear cut definition of what wealthy means.
Jane Austen, excellent question !
For myself, the definition of ‘wealthy’ is someone who could sit at home and watch TV (or make comments on TM.com *L*) – without ever “working” again unless they WANT to. This is a simple mathematical figure regarding income from savings – as well as the ‘level’ they want to live at (‘rich’ people do go bankrupt – by living beyond their income).
I do think people need to pay their fair share in taxes, but a sur-tax for health-care I don’t believe is necessary.
Especially rushing it, not looking at alternatives or in conjunction with them. And lastly sending the message that Pelosi is sending, which is disrespectful and shortsighted.
“Especially rushing it, not looking at alternatives or in conjunction with them” daubry
As I’ve been saying repeatedly – those ‘alternatives’ are needed as well. Anyone who thinks more taxing of the ‘wealthy’ can solve all our problems has no idea of how deep we’re into the mud.
daubry says:
17 July 2009 at 2:04 pm
I do think people need to pay their fair share in taxes, but a sur-tax for health-care I don’t believe is necessary.
Especially rushing it, not looking at alternatives or in conjunction with them. And lastly sending the message that Pelosi is sending, which is disrespectful and shortsighted.
_____
Pelosi’s not my favorite but Kris loves her
“What’s the difference between people who have finally made it in their careers, you know have worked themselves up to this kind of income, and those who have been born into it?”
Allow me to be snarky.
There is no difference:
$250,000 and $350,000 according to the posts I’ve read are people who don’t work hard, have no empathy, cheat the system and don’t pay their fair share.
Any questions?
Are we to tax their savings? Or just the interest? I’m assuming that their savings came from their earnings which had already been taxed or put into IRAs which are taxed as the money is used. Do I have that right? I just don’t see how we can define two people making a combined income of $350,000 as wealthy or rich, or whatever. They definitely are affluent and can probably afford to buy the Mercedes or the 40 ft boat but after working for 40 years and reaching the peak of their professions I would certainly hope they could afford a few of the luxuries. I just don’t see how this qualifies as wealthy. Right now I’m playing “devil’s advocate” simply because I think we confusing wealthy with affluent.
GeoT says:
17 July 2009 at 2:09 pm
Heh. I don’t have much against her.
But you know if this is going to happen, at least make it comprehensible and sharp, with a clear definition.
I know, crazy right?
FYO to all:
“The House plan differs, however, in that over the next decade, it would tax families making more than $350,000 annually to the tune of $544 billion to help pay for reforms”
http://ifawebnews.com/2009/07/17/house-committee-approves-health-bill-with-public-plan-tax-on-wealthy/
(earlier I said individuals @ $350,000)
also: there is a public option.
and yes, here needs to be more cost cutting and price control but Hospitals have already agreed to pony up $150 billion towards the effort.
or, FYI
“As I’ve been saying repeatedly – those ‘alternatives’ are needed as well. Anyone who thinks more taxing of the ‘wealthy’ can solve all our problems has no idea of how deep we’re into the mud.”
We can agree!
I’m just saying this is the only idea being floated around, and it’s bad. Just plain awful.
And until I see numbers, or projections for every angle, I don’t want a sur-tax. That simple.
I would have to say that with my definition that those making $250,000 or $350,000 a year have worked hard. They didn’t always have that kind of income, especially those who were willing to build up businesses (no not Goldman Sachs) that became part of their communities (meaning those who went into retail, construction, etc). I am just confused over the term “wealthy.” To me Warren Buffett is wealthy, Bill Gates is wealthy, Oprah is wealthy and so on.
daubry says:
17 July 2009 at 2:09 pm
and don’t pay their fair share.
—
correction: they are allowed to pay a smaller percentage of their income than lower tax bracket earners. They do it legally but it’s still wrong, thus not fair.
GeoT says:
17 July 2009 at 2:16 pm
________
Some years ago I was having a conversation with my dad and brother-in-law about taxes. At the time my brother-in-law was making 10 times what I was making (and I was making a good salary though I never reached anything like the numbers I mentioned earlier) yet he paid less taxes than I did. Just a comment.
A little news I got not too long ago… a little damage control after that “no”.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/07/17/obama-steps-in-front-of-health-care-no/
Jane Austen says:
17 July 2009 at 2:20 pm
GeoT says:
17 July 2009 at 2:16 pm
________
Some years ago I was having a conversation with my dad and brother-in-law about taxes. At the time my brother-in-law was making 10 times what I was making (and I was making a good salary though I never reached anything like the numbers I mentioned earlier) yet he paid less taxes than I did. Just a comment.
____
your experience is common. The system has been gamed to make “avoiding taxes” the goal which gives birth to loopholes and yes cheating. I’m not 100% sure a flat tax is really the answer but it sure sounds allot better than what we have.
There is no difference:
$250,000 and $350,000 according to the posts I’ve read are people who don’t work hard, have no empathy, cheat the system and don’t pay their fair share. daubry
“don’t work hard” – see my definition of “not having to work unless you want to”
“have no empathy” – individual judgements. I know of both ends of that particular equation, including racists.
“cheat the system” – If you simply use the available rules, that’s not cheating
“don’t pay their fair share” – returning even CLOSE to the 1981 70% tax rate would certainly solve THAT problem
Taylor Marsh says: 17 July 2009 at 2:28 pm
A little news I got not too long ago… a little damage control after that “no”.
Well said. Why is it the simple fact this is a ‘work in progress’ (and far from ready) is constantly ignored?
I think all of us know this is a work in progress.
Hence the debate.
daubry, ‘all of us’ obviously doesn’t include Fox News
Oops!
I should be clearer.
All of us who have a brain, know this is a work in progress.
The reason to tax the wealth is the same reason Willy Sutton robbed banks–that is where the money is. Geo T hit the nail on the head 80% of the wealth in the nation is owned by 20% of the people. Income distribution is more lopsided than any other time since the gilded age. A large portion of health care reform, a major chunk will have to be payed through a redistributionist tax scheme.
Sin taxes are an incredibly bad idea Taylor. They punish the people least able to pay them. Most vices, junk food, cigarettes, malt liquor are indulged in by the lowest income brackets. Sin taxes have a disproportionate hit on the working poor and the “invisible class” those just above the poverty line.
Here is a rather nasty fact, especially for those people banging on about obesity. Obesity in this nation is a disease of the poor. The foods the poor can afford are exactly the bad dietary choices that people on this blog have been ranting about. The poor eat crappy, fat-laden, empty calorie meals because that is all they can afford.
But let’s run with Taylor’s point. Stop soaking the rich, where is the money coming from? From working folks? Nor likely because many of those people are up against the wall, quite possibly not even working now. The middle class, is that were the money is coming from? No again, there houses are underwater and they are squeezing pennies until they scream.
What agency might have a few billion dollars sloshing around? That would be the military. Interesting, the pointless war in Iraq and the botched occupation could help in closing the gap if we put an end to the mess in Mesopotamia. Any particular reason to burn billions on the unworkable “star wars” program? Any particular reason to spend billions on the New all service fighter program or the DDGX program or the other odd bits of overpriced military hardware when our closest competitor–China– is a generation away from even thinking of being a serious global military competitor?
Oh that’s right it all a part of “muscular diplomacy” We could not possibly pare back our military to a more modest level consistent with a peace loving Republic now could we?
It is also odd that we managed to find twelve trillion dollars to bail out the greedy, stupid, no-good, incompetents of Wall Street, but can’t find the fund for health care.
For the bank meltdown alone the uber-rich owe us big time. Or is the argument that the hard working people at Goldman-Sachs, who on average make a million dollar a year, have no obligation to the very tax payers who bailed out their sorry butts?
Taylor the only way the wealthy become and stay wealthy is by the protection and support of public sphere. The very rules of our society help create and protect the capitalist and the entrepreneur. The government lays down the ground rules and enforces them so business can thrive. Without the society and its government there would be no money in the first place for any one to “earn” by “hard work” or any other means. The wealthy owe there very fortunes and lives to the government that supports there endeavors. Is it too much to ask that they contribute their fair share? Is is too much to ask that since they have gained so much from our society that they should chip in more than the average?
The foods the poor can afford are exactly the bad dietary choices that people on this blog have been ranting about. The poor eat crappy, fat-laden, empty calorie meals because that is all they can afford. spincitysd
Sorry, spin – but I can’t agree with that. As someone raised in the grocery business, I know there are intelligent choices there. I argued with Mike Huckabee via EMail repeatedly because he represented that “extra 12 bucks” in people’s paychecks as a “movie ticket”. As I pointed out to him, those 12 dollars would buy plenty of eggs – 20 pounds of potatoes – a gallon of milk – and several loaves of bread that are certainly “healthy”.
There are good choices in food that are far from expensive.
I do agree with spincity. The issue is one of both choice and access. Even if there are good food choices that are relatively inexpensive, there are often no places where the poor and working poor can buy them. Take Anacostia, the poorest ward in WashDC, as an example. No grocery stores at all in the past 10 years until one just opened recently. But a proliferation of fast food, liquor and cash checking joints.
also agree with spincity on relative benefits of wealth versus sin tax. But some of these GS folks we’re demonizing came from pretty humble beginnings. Lloyd Blankfein was raised in the projects, for example. He’s Mr. Moneybanks now, of course. And that’s what makes America great. A poor Jewish kid from the projects can become head of the most white shoe, powerful investment bank in the world.
ogenec, you just blew me away.
You’re saying there are areas in this country where people can’t buy a loaf of bread ?? No 7/11’s? Nothing?
Wowsers.
You just changed my view of America.
pmichael, yes there are. Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113002617.html
This is reality for the citizens of Anacostia (Ward 8), Washington DC’s least prosperous neighborhood. And, BTW, it is the reason I support ideas like enterprise zones to revitalize these decaying neighborhoods. Not just here in DC, but in the rust belt, in appalachia, and wherever else you find endemic poverty.