Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty have spent the last decade tracking the incomes of the poor, the middle class and the rich in countries across the world. More than anything else, their work shows that the top earners in the United States have taken a bigger and bigger share of overall income over the last three decades, with inequality nearly as acute as it was before the Great Depression. [...]
Both admire, even adore, the United States, they say, for its entrepreneurial drive, innovative spirit and, not least, its academic excellence: the two met while re-searchers in Cambridge, Mass. But both also express bewilderment over the current conversation about whether the wealthy, who have taken most of America’s income gains over the last 30 years, should be paying higher taxes.
'The United States is getting accustomed to a completely crazy level of inequality,' Mr. Piketty said, with a degree of wonder. 'People say that reducing inequality is radical. I think that tolerating the level of inequality the United States tolerates is radical.' " --SOURCE
The rejection by the GOP of Mr. Obama's proposed "Buffett Rule" is more evidence of how out of touch with reality the GOP is. Sixty percent (60%) of Americans support the Buffett Rule. The Republicans in Congress ignore the people and continue to support and defend the wealthiest and most privileged among us.
"Democrats support the Buffett rule as part of a broader
effort to raise taxes on the wealthy to help close the nation's budget gap.
Republicans have resisted any standalone effort to raise taxes as a way to do
that, arguing that it would choke off investment and job growth. The White House
estimates that the proposal would affect about 450,000 taxpayers. Outside
estimates say the proposal could raise $37 billion-$50 billion annually in
additional revenue, a small amount when compared to the federal debt which is
currently more than $15 trillion.
A Gallup Poll released April 13 showed that 60% of
Americans support the Buffett rule, while 37% oppose it. The strength of public
support for it comes from Democrats and independents, underscoring why Obama
sought a vote on the proposal as he makes the case for his re-election." --SOURCE
Americans should ask themselves why the GOP continues to favor the wealthiest and most privileged, while ignoring the steady decline of the middle class and poor. The richest have made the largest gains in wealth over the past 30 years, while the middle class and poor have flat-lined and declined.
How can the GOP ignore this? Does the Republican Party care? It seems the answer to that question is NO!
And the nominee presumptive, Willard Romney, is part of the 1% in this country that has gained the most [remember his 14% effective tax rate? and his off-shore bank accounts?]
WASHINGTON |
Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent on income of $789,674 last year, the White House said. Romney has estimated he will pay a 15.4 percent tax rate on income of $20.9 million." --SOURCE
President Obama has asked again and again why his family should pay less in taxes than a working-class family.
The GOP doesn't care to answer that question.
74 comments:
Sorry everyone. I went to delete an Anonymous troll, and I wiped out 50 comments!
Sloppy and dumb. Sorry. Please re-submit your comments.
Thanks, Shaw.
Nevermind. I forgot I have your comments in my email saved. I'll repost. I'm on the road right now and will do so as soon as I have time.
Going to the opening of my cousin's art show. See my side bar for photos of his incredible wood carvings of the greats of the Jazz and Mississippi Delta Blues world.
Later.
Rational Nation USA has left a new comment on your post "Do We Really Want to Become a Third World Country?...":
More class warfare rhetoric fueled by the statist loving bigger and more intrusive government EQUALS BETTER MINDSET crowd.
Here's the thing... if we had a 12% across the board tax rate on gross personal income everybody would be treated equally.
$50,000 income... $6,000 in federal taxes.
$100,000 income... $12,000 in federal taxes.
$500,000 income... $60,000 in federal taxes.
Obama income $789,674... $94,761 in federal taxes
Romney income 20.9 million... $2,508,000.
Eliminate ALL tax loopholes, deductions, and exemptions.
Problem solved. Tax revenues would go up, success would not be unduly punished, and there would be no significantly heavier burden placed on the middle class than already exists.
If my example were the current system Mrs. Rational and me (in the 75,000 - 100,000 income bracket)would have paid $1256 more in Fed. Tax 2011. I'm okay with that.
Would you be okay as well? No, may ask you again to define objectively the anti concept of fair, fairness, or ones fair share?
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Posted by Rational Nation USA to Progressive Eruptions at April 17, 2012 10:29 AM
Infidel753 has left a new comment on your post "Do We Really Want to Become a Third World Country?...":
Eliminating all deductions is impossible. Some people have legitimate business expenses and disallowing deductions for these would mean taxing them on money that isn't really income.
Also, the suggestion does not address the actual point of the post, which is that escalating inequality is pushing the country in a direction which is harmful to it.
Green Eagle has an interesting post in inequality and progressive taxation that doesn't depend on the fairness argument -- click here.
A 30% effective tax rate on an income of $1,000,000 is much less burdensome than a 12% tax rate on an income of $30,000, since it's obviously much easier to live on $700,000 a year than on $26,400 a year, and the latter person suffers more from the loss of his $3,600 than the former does from the loss of his $300,000, in terms of real standard of living. Even if the person making $30,000 isn't taxed at all, the difference between $30,000 and $700,000 is so large that the reward for success is still there.
Posted by Infidel753 to Progressive Eruptions at April 17, 2012 11:29 AM
Rational Nation USA has left a new comment on your post "Do We Really Want to Become a Third World Country?...":
More class warfare rhetoric fueled by the statist loving bigger and more intrusive government EQUALS BETTER MINDSET crowd.
Here's the thing... if we had a 12% across the board tax rate on gross personal income everybody would be treated equally.
$50,000 income... $6,000 in federal taxes.
$100,000 income... $12,000 in federal taxes.
$500,000 income... $60,000 in federal taxes.
Obama income $789,674... $94,761 in federal taxes
Romney income 20.9 million... $2,508,000 in taxes.
Eliminate ALL tax loopholes, deductions, and exemptions.
Problem solved. Tax revenues would go up, success would not be unduly punished, and there would be no significantly heavier burden placed on the middle class than already exists.
If my example were the current system Mrs. Rational and me (in the 75,000 - 100,000 income bracket)would have paid $1256 more in Fed. Tax 2011. I'm okay with that.
Would you be okay as well? Now, may I ask you again to define (objectively please) the anti concept of fair, fairness, or ones fair share?
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Posted by Rational Nation USA to Progressive Eruptions at April 17, 2012 10:33 AM
Rational Nation USA has left a new comment on your post "Do We Really Want to Become a Third World Country?...":
First I specifically said eliminating loopholes, exemptions, and deductions on personal income.
I am in favor of legitimate business expenses being treated as they currently are.
I'll surely check out the link. What I fully anticipate finding is a evasive argument rather than confronting the anti concept fair, fairness, paying ones fair share head on. Different rhetoric is probably used to cloak the "fairness" anti concept in different trimming.
As to your example, I've been there in years passed, and the dollars you used are consistent with effective real dollars then. The effect? It gave me the incentive to apply myself and progress forward in the income scale.
Exactly as my adult children with families are doing today. Without bitching about those who may be more successful than themselves.
Given the President is hell bent on turning our nation into a entitlement society I suspect there will be really huge problems for my grandchildren to clean up someday.
Posted by Rational Nation USA to Progressive Eruptions at April 17, 2012 12:06 PM
Here's the link that was in the original version of my comment -- click here.
Rational Nation USA has left a new comment on your post "Do We Really Want to Become a Third World Country?...":
Oh, for what it's worth, no need objectively define "fair", "fairness", or "paying ones fair share." I know nobody has thus far...
... It is a impossibility.
Posted by Rational Nation USA to Progressive Eruptions at April 17, 2012 12:09 PM
RN, the numbers in my example were representative of, and intended to justify, progressive taxation and the Buffett rule (30% effective tax rate on an income of $1,000,000 vs. a much lower rate on a lower income) -- in contrast to the flat taxation concept you advocated. If you say that such numbers "gave me the incentive to apply myself and progress forward in the income scale", you're acknowledging my point that progressive taxation and the Buffett rule would not remove the economic incentive for hard work.
The problem with the current system, the product of decades of Republican tax-cutting for the wealthy, is that rich people like Buffett and Romney (and Obama) are paying lower effective tax rates than people with more normal incomes.
I don't know why you keep harping on fairness when that's not the argument Shaw is making. Again, the point of the post is that rising inequality, whether or not it's unfair, is having harmful effects on the country. As for Green Eagle's argument, why not actually read it before coming to a conclusion about what it says?
Infidel - I beg to differ. It is IN FACT the argument the President has repeatedly argued and IT IS in fact that which Shaw has supported.
Further progressive taxation is IN FACT based on the anti concept of fairness. Your attempt to divert attention from this fact and thus evade the basic question I posed has not nor willo it ever escape me.
At least be honest for Christ's sake will ya? I would at least respect that.
Shaw, I don't blame you for deleteing the racist comment (Racist - w/link) by Anon that preceeded mine this morning. Good for you in not reposting it.
As to the other 35 comments what the hell were they?
RN: Fairness is not the argument Shaw makes in this post which this comment thread is in response to. What Obama has or hasn't said is irrelevant since the posting is what we're responding to.
Green Eagle's post which I linked to is another argument for progressive taxation which has nothing to do with fairness.
You haven't addressed the points the posting actually makes, and in responding to me, you haven't addressed the points I've made. You're trying to change the subject to something else you feel more comfortable arguing against.
Again, the point of the post is that rising inequality, whether or not it's unfair, is having harmful effects on the country. Why don't you address that?
Further, you are wrong to accuse me of dishonesty.
There are two sides to every story.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/09/the-myth-of-economic-inequality
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287643/income-inequality-myth-michael-tanner
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/inequality
Are the rich making their gains at the expense of the poor? Studies have not shown that.
As for the post WWII boom. We were the only game in town, the world actually. We were the only great industrial power left standing with intact infrastructure. There was also nowhere else for wealthy Americans to stash their money, so they had no choice but to bend over and take it from Uncle Sam.
We live in a much different world today. Having economic preeminence mad us fat and sloppy, others have caught up.
There are opportunities all over the globe. Tax people at that rate and they'll just engage in tax avoidance by putting their money somewhere else.
The federal government, in good times and bad, high taxation and low, averages about 17% of GDP in revenue collection. We need to design the federal government around that number.
And I'm with Les on the flat tax, no deductions.
We need economic liberty and an education system that is not gouging us at every turn.
I imagine Walter Russel Mead (who voted for Obama) is probably considered a heretic around here, but this is a good article on how to proceed:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/16/post-blue-jobs-part-two/
the first thing you should do is tax the living shit out of pop and all that junk food causing obesity and diabetes. of course that will never happen.
i think your first lady was trying to promote healthy diets and the crazy republicans even attacked that.
(how about saying a little prayer for the wilting canucks)
Infidel - After rereading the post I believe my initial comments and example are indeed germane to the post/argument. I'm sorry you choose to think differently.
As to fairness, the tone of this post in fact implies the "lack of fairness", the anti concept.
Further, I asked Shaw to define the term on my site a week ago, she chose not to respond. For reasons I fully understand.
With respect to my statement... "At least be honest for Christ's sake will ya? I would at least respect that."... I offer my apology for a statement that was admittedly based on my perception in regards to your position. Which by the way I still maintain is in error.,
Hey Billy Pilgrim, fat guys have a right to eat whatever the heck they want right? I mean vegetarians do.
And to answer your question, Obama does not pay less in taxes than a working class family. They pay more in absolute dollar amount, and in percentage.
The article cites the "effective tax rate," which is less than the official rate. Comparing apples to apples, rich people like the Obamas, Romneys and Buffetts still pay a higher percentage.
http://www.epi.org/blog/effective-tax-rates-color/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/12/warren-buffets-effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/
I like the people who say make the rich pay their fair share. What exactly is that? I'm not rich, but I know if I had to give over a third of what I made to the government, I would be one unhappy camper.
So if you came up with a better widget which you took a gamble on and took out a second mortgage to make a reality. Finished medical school, with a pile of bills and your done with the indentured servitude they call residency. Maybe you just plain worked hard. You are finally making some good money. Well of course you should pay more than your share.
You should have to give it to the government to subsidies people sitting on their duffs. I mean Joe's got to have his clean needle.
Last time I check we were suppose to treat all citizens equally. This socialist notion some have to make everyone equal is wrong. How come Linda has three dress and I only have one. "We should both have two". Since there are more of us we will just make it a law. Well when you put in the time and money to become a RN like Linda. Do double shifts and put in the hours and holidays. You will be able to buy those dresses too.
We should all pay the same. Flat tax. Dump pretty much all the bureaucracy. Why is there a Department of Education? lose it, education is covered by the states. Foreign aid ectra.
Oh and please that bull she pays more just is not so. This rate rationalization is as bad as my local politician telling me he lowered my tax rate and sounding so proud. The fact they raised everyone's assessment didn't seem to change his opinion. You can tell me till your blue in the face you lowered them. Guess what, when I pay more than last year, it went up! Does her IRS payment have the number of places his does? When you compare apples to apples her income tax rate is maxed just like his. When you add in all the rest of his dividend, interest or capital-gains income is when things change. They are taxed at a different rate.
She probably makes a quarter million. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/
She and the President might want to rethink their position. The President wants to raise the rate on people making more than $250,000. Not exactly the poster child he should of been looking for.
Re: coments from Rational Nation, who claims it's impossible to come up with a definition of fairness, and Big Guy, who says he'd be upset if he had to pay a third of his income in taxes.
The notion fairness is indefinable reveals a mindset incapable of grasping something most people get intuitively, from childhood. It's a fundamental understanding and knack developed with parents' help, reinforced in school, maybe in church and in scouting or Little League as well.
Part of growing up and becoming civilized and socialized (and no, that doesn't mean becoming a socialist) is being able to reconcile selfish impulses with one's understanding of fairness. Unfortunately, some miss or reject lessons about fairness, usually, I suspect, with the reinforcement of some examples set by adults who have the same deficit.
If an adult of average or better intelligence can't fathom how it can be fair to be required to pay a third of, say, a $10 million/year income, there's probably no rational or emotion-based explanation that could make it clear. Certainly not the argument about all the things this country makes possible. Certainly not arguments about how grandly one could live for the rest of his life if he were to make $10 million just once, let alone annually.
Just for the hell of it, though, think about this: The surest way to get love is to give it away.
That's not about money, but on some level it relates to the difference between selfless responsibility in a civilized society, and selfishness.
Missed my point, fairness is treating everyone the same. I don't care what the rate is as long as it is the same for all. If that rate is say 20% then guess what a guy like me pays his $5,000 and the hundred grand man 20K and your 500 Million top dog pays 100 Million. The amount they pay is increasing. This notion that it should somehow also have an addition to the rate to be "fair," is where I jump off the Kool Aid wagon.
"Part of growing up and becoming civilized and socialized (and no, that doesn't mean becoming a socialist) is being able to reconcile selfish impulses with one's understanding of fairness. Unfortunately, some miss or reject lessons about fairness, usually, I suspect, with the reinforcement of some examples set by adults who have the same deficit."
Thanks, but I am fairly well socialized. Thanks, but I already knew the difference between the two. I don't have a problem with paying my share. I have a problem with the idea that it is selfish to want to not have to pay more than others. It maybe be just a selfish impulse, but I also think that some of the people who would like to see these greater rates aren't being very fair. They exploit the system, that says let me sit on my dead backside because I can't go to work with my... drug problems, have to take care of my third kid I couldn't afford but now you're going to pay for us... Whatever.
Part of this equation is value. I never liked the blanket, "Well you have two let Johnny play with one." Why doesn't Johnny have one. Because he broke his and now you are expected to give him one of yours? He did not respect his own enough not to break his, why is he not going to break mine? Now Mike happened to forget to bring his, he takes care of his stuff, so I have no problem lending him one.
Are you a head shrink? Going straight for the parents, please. Some people and parents actually teach values. You sound like the type that has his kid play in the game that doesn't actually keep score. Nice concept, except in real life when the Yankees play Boston there is a score, an actual winner. Maybe they should get rid of the World Series trophy? We will get them all most socialized.
If the definition of "fairness" were in fact "treating everyone the same (equally)" as The Big Guy said, rather than some subjective floating pretzel logic which is precisely how the left views "fair" I'd be okay with it. But we all know what reality is in this day and age.
Thanks Big Guy for making sense of the anti concepts "fair", "fairness", and "paying ones fair share."
"They exploit the system, that says let me sit on my dead backside because I can't go to work with my... drug problems, have to take care of my third kid I couldn't afford..."
This is a sterotype that people like Big Guy use to denigrate the poor. Ronald Reagan used the same sterotype tactics when he complained about "welfare queens" driving cadillacs and "big bucks" on food stamps. It was all a lie.
This post is about how the rich are getting richer, and the middle-class and poor have flat-lined or declined and have done worse over the past 30 years.
George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have done nothing for this country, and have added to the deficit.
Big Guy's complaints and examples are nothing more than blaming the victims of this decline instead of the corporations and the tax breaks that favor the wealthy.
"The following are 25 signs that middle class families have been targeted for extinction….
#1 Over the past several decades, millions upon millions of middle class Americans have been systematically turned into government dependents. Back in 1960, social welfare benefits made up approximately 10 percent of all salaries and wages. In the year 2000, social welfare benefits made up approximately 21 percent of all salaries and wages. Today, social welfare benefits make up approximately 35 percent of all salaries and wages.
#2 Unemployment is at epidemic levels and the vast majority of the new jobs that have been “created” in recent years have been low paying jobs. Of those Americans that do have a job at this point, one out of every four works a job that pays $10 an hour or less.
#3 The “working poor” is a group that is rapidly growing in this country. If you can believe it, the United States actually has a higher percentage of workers doing low wage work than any other major industrialized nation does.
#4 Over the past several decades, the percentage of low income jobs has steadily increased. Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.
#5 The way that our economic system is structured today, almost all of the economic rewards go to the very top of the food chain. The following is how income gains in the United States were distributed during 2010….
-37 percent of all income gains went to the top 0.01 percent of all income earners
-56 percent of all income gains went to the rest of the top 1 percent
-7 percent of all income gains went to the bottom 99 percent
#6 Several decades ago, there was a much more even distribution of income in this country. Back in the 1970s, the top 1 percent of all income earners brought in about 8 percent of all income. Today, they bring in about 21 percent of all income.
#7 As the middle class shrinks, the number of “low income” and “poor” Americans is rapidly rising. Today, approximately 48 percent of all Americans are currently either considered to be “low income” or are living in poverty.
(cont.)
#8 Manufacturing jobs once enabled huge numbers of Americans to enjoy a middle class lifestyle. Unfortunately, those jobs are leaving this country at a breathtaking pace. Back in 1940, 23.4% of all American workers had manufacturing jobs. Today, only 10.4% of all American workers have manufacturing jobs.
#15 When you concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government and the big corporations, it is inevitable that massive amounts of wealth will become concentrated in just a few hands. In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.
#16 There is nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong with a game where individuals and small businesses cannot compete fairly. According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined.
#17 When the number of poor people rapidly expands in a society, that is a recipe for social unrest. At this point, the poorest 50 percent of all Americans collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.
#18 The hidden tax of inflation is absolutely devastating middle class families all over America. Since 1970, the U.S. dollar has lost more than 83 percent of its value. Any dollars that middle class families try to save are constantly losing a little bit more value every single day.
(cont.)
#9 In the old days, any man that was willing to work hard and wanted a job could get one. Today, there are millions of American men sitting on their couches at home wondering why nobody will hire them. Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percentof all men in the United States have jobs.
#10 The middle class is shrinking at the same time that America is getting poorer as a nation. In the middle of the last century, the United States was #1 in the world in GDP per capita. Today, the United States is #13 in GDP per capita.
#11 Every year now, we see millions of Americans fall out of the middle class. In 2010, 2.6 million more Americans descended into poverty. That was thelargest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.
#12 The shrinking middle class is having a disproportionate impact on children. At this point, approximately 22 percent of all American children are living in poverty.
#13 In the old days, most Americans grew up in middle class neighborhoods. Sadly, this is no longer true. In 1970, 65 percent of all Americans lived in “middle class neighborhoods”. By 2007, only 44 percent of all Americans lived in “middle class neighborhoods”.
#14 The concentration of wealth at the very top of the food chain is astounding. Right now, over 50 percent of all stocks and bonds are owned by just 1 percentof the U.S. population
Well, I realize you are the administrator, but other people are following this discussion. To just unilaterally wipe out content is showing poor form. I can't win this argument so I'm taking my ball and go home.
Big Guy, I attempted to wipe out a troll's comment, but, by mistake, hit the button that highlighted ALL the comments and whoosh! they were all gone. I do have them in my email; and when I have the time, I will repost them all.
I did it again today on the post above this.
It was an error.
I wish blogger had written the program that asked "Are you sure you want to delete all 60 comments?" Then I would have realized my goof.
Too tired just now, after walking six miles, to sit and copy and past 60+ comments.
Sorry for the goof.
BTW, am I the only one who's noticed the word verification is gone from posting comments? That was a royal pain.
Blogger is beginning to get me quite upset. Not the most user friendly if you will.
Hey Big Guy, I can vouch for Shaw, she does not moderate nor delete comments that have any merit or value for her readership. Even if the majority of her readership may be in disagreement.
She will delete comments of trolls whose comments add nothing to the discussion, are disrespectful of her readers or herself, and who visit for the sole purpose of disruption. Before she does this she give ample warning the the person, or troll.
I disagree often with this site's views and many of it's regulars. But Shaw really is a class act. Even though she's just a little out there at times! ;)
Well, I'll take your word for it, as I have never used as an administrator. So six miles, what's that a cool down from the marathon? Still have annoying verification.
Another mystery to Blogger. Word verification was gone while I was posting the above comment.
Six mile walk was my weekly long walk. I used to run, but knees gave out. Never did a marathon, but ran 10ks and once did a half marathon.
Post a Comment