Tax The Rich, Tax The Rich, Tax The Rich, Tax The Rich…
Democratic Party pols used to understand the obvious. If there were an issue that most people, most voters, held dear, and if it fell within the party’s own traditional policy parameters, these pols used to beat it to death and win elections with it. That was the way it was in the old days.
Now these pols have been Obama-ed. They think deeply. They wallow in the depths of the counter-intuitive. They see the many facets of complex issues and seek always for a solution that accommodates the thinking of minds as deep and far-seeing as their own. And of course that accommodates The Markets. And oh yes, are bipartisan, too, because isn’t what The People really need, even if that’s not what The People are smart enough to know that they really need it?
What I am going to suggest now will therefore be treated as only a small part of present-day, more profound Democratic policy setting and electioneering, not the be-all issue to run on. Indeed, it will be laughed at because of its lack of sophistication, its simplistic approach to matters that demand more subtle and nuanced approaches.
But here it is anyway. TAX THE RICH. That’s the only issue Democrats need to win the upcoming election. TAX THE RICH. That’s what most people want in place of squeezing everyone else. TAX THE RICH not only as the opening gambit in a political debate, but as the last issue that will be left standing, with the only compromise ultimately allowed is how much to TAX THE RICH so others need not suffer more than they absolutely must. Take not taxing the rich off the table.
TAX THE RICH! TAX THE RICH! TAX THE RICH! Got it. Don’t ponder it. Don’t see the other guy’s point of view. Don’t expect the other side to see the past error of their ways. ways. Don’t expect them not to use every hackneyed phrase to come back at you.
Just do it. TAX THE RICH in deed as well as words and win. Or whiny compromise your way to another defeat and more pain for the people you purport to serve. Start with that 3 percent surtax on incomes above $1 million a year and go from there.
More about this writer’s latest work can be found on the Internet at: This God-Awful Political Season (In Verse).
17 Responses to “Tax The Rich, Tax The Rich, Tax The Rich, Tax The Rich…”
This is a good start. $40 billion or so will reduce the deficit by 2% to 5% depending on what projections are used for the deficit going forward.
The issue at hand is really the other 95%. Where do we find that piece to bring the budget into balance?
I offer that most people making over 1M per year would be willing to pay another 3% if the government spent that money wisely.
But here lies the problem. Who can prove without a shadow of doubt that Washington spends money wisely?
And penalize the “job creators”? No way!
And how many jobs have they created, please don’t give me that small business BS. The small tax increase on the 1% will not affect their lives, but it will save this country from going down.
Not that the math matters given the author’s point of view but just for completeness, a 3% surtax on incomes over $1,000,000 yields about $15 billion in tax receipts per year, not $40 billion. It is less than a drop in the bucket. $40 billion would be yielded by putting the 39.6% rate back in place which is a 4.6% increase on incomes over $200/$250K.
I suspect that’s irrelevant to the author who believes it should be done on principle (what principle I don’t know).
And that of course is before one considers that people who make over a million dollars paid an average Federal income tax of 24.6% of AGI versus the average of about 12.8%.
But hey, TAX THE RICH anyway. It’s the thing to do.
Yeah tax the rich.
Heavy and Forever.
They created this economic mess and they holding out on jobs with the rat-holed money they stole from us.
It’s not a matter of goofy math takes, it’s a matter of principle.
Worked for Ike.
Even the 1929 crash did not hurt the 1%
Get real people and quit clouding the issue with the same old BS Red herrings.
Hi All,
The economic issue this post concerns is deficit reduction. Will it be done only on the backs of the middle class and poor. Or will the very rich kick in at least something — which as I have pointed out before, is what is being done in every other country facing fiscal problems.
This post, however, is not primarily about economics. It is about politics. I would like the coming election to pit “Class Warfare” and Job Creator” slogans against “Tax The Rich” and “Shared Sacrifice” slogans. The issues are far more complex than that, of course, but these slogans pretty much focus in on the real choices.
Let’s do it and let the voters decide on these choices. Then all live with the consequences.
Have a great holiday,
Mike
If high taxes prevent job creation by the wealthy — the inverse should be true that low taxes foster job creation. Well, the wealthy have enjoyed historically low taxes for 11 years now. Where are the jobs???
Our current top tax bracket is much lower than in was in Eisenhower’s administration when it was in the 90′s. Yet we had relative prosperity and a lower unemployment rate.
The truth is that in order for the economy to recover the middle class will need to have more money to put into it. The idea of the wealthiest individuals lifting all boats has proven to be hogwash.
Interesting reading these comments since many suggest getting more money into the hands of the poor and middle class.
First comment concerning the total income from the 3% (not 1%) surtax. It is 35 to 40 billion when applied to the adjusted gross income as reported on the most recent census data.
Second comment, the tax rate was 90% for high income earners during the Eisenhower years, but the deductions were much higher, so the effective rate was lower than that. JFK ran on a platform to lower taxes for the higher income groups that would create jobs and he won. He was one of the first to begin lowering taxes,reforming the tax code and making the rates more equitable. And that was during a time that many more than 55% of the income earners paid federal tax.
And I have a couple questions.
1. How do we get more money into the hands of the poor when 45+% of American does not pay federal taxes now? Do we provide on the tax form a line that calculates an additional 10% of their AGI in addition to any current rebates to be entered as a rebate if their return indicates they are not required to pay any taxes?
2. When is the real corpse in the room going to be addressed? That is the growing deficit and the growing debt that is not being addressed now since no one will accept the positon of the deficit reduction committee. Right now the corpse looks bad. But not too long, it will begin to stink and then it will have to be removed.
Via the left’s trickle-down theory, of course. We make the government tax more and spend more, and that spending will trickle down to the poor and middle class.
Just like the right’s trickle-down theory, it makes sense at a micro level. When a specific entrepreneur has more money to invest, he’s more likely to create jobs. And when a specific retiree gets a larger social security check, her income rises.
But at a macro level, the theory is at odds with some awkward statistics. Income inequality has been growing since the 60′s, despite government expanding by a third since then and the growth of programs like Medicare and Medicaid and Pell grants specifically intended to benefit the poor and middle class. If taxing and spending level the income distribution, why haven’t they done so?
Sorry, RP, but your first comment is incorrect. I did the calculations on the IRS SOI data and you get $14.7 billion from a 3% surtax on income over $1 million. The data is there if you’d like to replicate the calculation.
I think you’re right Michael. The phrase, “shared sacrifice” gets to the essence of what matters when it comes to the chasm between the working poor and middle class and the rich. It isn’t only about money, it’s also about that e pluribus unum thing. You know, the idea that we are 1 nation. Crazy idea no?
I agree with you, JSpencer, “shared sacrifice” is a good rationale for raising taxes on the rich. We’re going to have to raise taxes in general to balance the budget, and the rich are a good place to start.
That’s better than imagining there would be a large fiscal impact. And it’s way better than justifying higher taxes as their “fair share,” as if there were some objective standard of fairness.
My preference, though, would be to cut subsidies to the rich, through corporate welfare and mortgage deductions and government bailouts and all the other forms such subsidies take.
There should be permanent tax on the income of the rich and it should be real high. Like 55% high, with no deductions for any reason. As well, it should be nationally illegal for business to seek tax incentives, especially from local governments for the purpose of locating their business in these areas. All foreign imports need to be taxed at rates that make exactly equal to domestic production, never less.
Please stop the “don’t pay any Federal taxes” nonsense. This number increased under Gingrich and W – it’s called welfare reform and the working poor. A family of 4 has to make around $20K and a single person makes less than $15K to pay no Federal Income tax. Any TeaBaggers wanna live on those numbers?
@Rudi and the rest:
That someone pays no federal income tax does NOT EQUAL that he pays no federal taxes. Cut out the silliness. How many people living in the U.S. do not pay gas tax? Of those, how many do not purchase any products that have import duties? Iirc, there is also a federal tax on electricity (although I have not checked my electric bill lately). Finally: what part of business expenses do you not understand? Prices are based on businesses expected revenues and expenses–TAXES INCLUDED!
To suggest that a head of household who earns $30,000 per year and has two kids is not paying taxes because she does not pay INCOME taxes is intellectually dishonest and mathematically ridiculous.