Why the intense anger about what someone else pays in income tax?

[TheWebHead]

we're talking about maybe $50-60 billion a year in a $14.5 trillion a year economy, and that's assuming the added taxes would have no impact on spending and investing behavior, equity valuations, and taxable revenues. I'm at a loss to understand what is motivating this rage. Are you angry because others who you respect politically are angry? Are you angry about 36%? Would you be less angry if current tax rates were 39% and Democrats were unsuccessful in attempts to raise them to 42%? Would there be some top tier income tax raising proposal that you wouldn't be angry with if it were unsuccessful?

[provis99]

1. in that case, let's cut rich people's taxes to Zero.

After all, it makes no difference to the economy, right?

[BeyondGeography]

2. Why have roads, bridges, airports, schools

A society???

[DJ13]

3. Because someone has to pay for government

If the well off dont pay their share, the rest of us will have to.

[shireen]

4. so many questions ....

Here's one for you.
Why are the Republicans so adamant about keeping the tax cuts for people making over $250k?

[housewolf]

6. Because they are ideologues

It's pretty simple, really. They aren't rational and all they have is an ideology. You've heard it a million times - cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. There's also a thread within conservatism that if you're a good person god will reward you and if you haven't received the material blessings from the lord, it must mean that you're not a good person (I kid you not, this actually is a belief within conservative philosophy, albeit a fairly hidden one at this point in time. Nonetheless, it's still there but now they couch it in terms like "only the rich create jobs).

[Ninga]

5. It should be enough that the tax cut is not paid for . n/t

[OHdem10]

7. This is an old smoldering "fire". When Bush passed this bill

there was a lot of chicanery and it required Cheney
to vote to pass it. They wrote it to sunset because
they questioned how effective it would be. It did
not create the jobs promised. The jobs went to China
Asia, some South America, Tehran, Ireland. you get
the picture. Basically we have never forgotten how
it was rammed through against our resistence.

[ProudDad]

19. They also had to have it sunset

because the Dems threatened to filibuster so the republican Senate brought it to a vote under special rules that allowed for only 51 votes to pass it...it HAD to sunset...

Same thing the Dems could have been doing for good legislation for that last 4 years but didn't...

[applegrove]

8. For me it is that there is a deficit and the rich do not need more $$$.

They've come through this depression unscathed. And what will this cost the next generation be?

[Autumn]

9. Deficit. And what they will do to cut it n/t

[Cosmocat]

24. WINNER

..

[ZombieHorde]

25. I agree. We are afraid what is going to continue to happen to poor people. nt

[TheWebHead]

10. so interesting responses

I would respond that a society can function whether the top 2% pay 36% or 39%, and of course there is a minimum tax to fund a functional government, just as there's a maximum tax to prevent a seizure of investment and risk taking that keeps the economy flowing. We're somewhere in between those two polar extremes, and 36% and 39% are close enough as to not require the Democratic party to implode if the outcome during near 10% unemployment is that they choose the lower number.

Lots of "have to pay" or rich don't need it, etc., but if you've watched reaction to the investor class, the risk takers, the entrepreneurs, they seem to like this deal. To the extent it causes them to feel more confident, exercise their animal spirits, take risks, start businesses, invest in start-ups, then it boosts GDP growth. If we can create policy that boost GDP by a percent, that's a lot of added wealth into the economy, a lot of tax revenues, a lot of jobs. That's a good outcome for the president, a good outcome for incumbent Democrats who stick their necks out and support this deal and want to attract independents that aren't really concerned about which side placates their base or scores political points. They just want the economy back on track and not be so fearful about the future economically.

[ProudDad]

20. A society CANNOT function for long

when a tiny segment of the population transfers most of the wealth from the Commons into their hands...

There's NEVER been a society with such unequal distribution of the wealth that survived for long...

Including this one in 1929...

We are watching this one disintegrate again...(thank goodness)...

------

In the micro, you are passing on the bullshit, Randian nonsense that the only things that works to motivate human beings is money...

That Big Lie is patently and demonstrably untrue...

<Self-Edited to remove snarky comment>

[budkin]

11. Because the rich need to pay their fare share and the government needs that money

One of our key beliefs as Democrats

[kentuck]

12. What an ill-informed question.

Deficits don't matter? Government programs don't matter? Taxes don't matter?

[harun]

13. If we weren't fighting two wars we can't afford, good, lower taxes on the rich.

The anger is because the exuberant defense spending and wars are for the rich, and they should then pay for them. We aren't occupying Iraq for laid off factory workers in Michigan.

Also when you go so far in debt that you need to print money to avoid bankruptcy you essentially make everyone's money worth less. This affects everyone, making international commodities like oil cost more to people in the United States making U.S. dollars.

All of these decisions benefit certain groups and hurt certain groups. We are seeing lot's of benefit going to the top 1-2% and a whole lot of pain going to the bottom 98%.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dawgs]

15. Why are you okay with the growing wealth gap?

The rich get richer IS CAUSING the rest of us to get poorer. Why are you okay with that?

[ieoeja]

16. Angry that he wants to give investors incentive to *not* invest.

Tax holiday ends: decent chance taxes will go down when Republicans gain control, so company owner reinvests company's income rather than taking it as profit and paying the higher taxes.

Tax holiday continues: unlikely taxes go down in the future; they are actually scheduled to go up in two years, so company owner takes as much profit out of company today while taxes are lower.

The tax holiday discourages investment. It was always bad for the economy. It will continue being bad for the economy.


This is probably why unemployment increased under every Republican president and decreased under every Democrat since the Department of Labor started keeping statistics. And why that trend ended when they let the tax holiday continue under this president.

[ljm2002]

17. Nice framing there...

...as if the outrage is due to begrudging other people their good fortune.

Let's get something straight here: the rich and the super rich have done very well over the last few years. They have benefited greatly from the Bush tax cuts which are due to expire. Their portion of the wealth and income have gone up, up, up while that of the bottom 80% has gone down, down, down. They need to pay their fair share, particularly since they are the ones who yell the loudest about the "problem" of the deficit. But somehow it is only a problem when a Democratic president is in office. It's only a problem when there are proposals to help those most in need, but not when it is a massive tax cut that benefits them disproportionately.

The argument that tax cuts for the rich will create jobs has been demonstrated as false. We've had years and years of those very tax cuts and the jobs situation has gone from bad to worse. It's time we reverted to where we were before those cuts.

We need to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent. We need to repair our infrastructure. We need to invest more in education. All of this will be helped by letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, and all of this suffers if we extend those tax cuts. So speaking for myself, my beef is not how much or how little some individual pays, you are right, I don't care about that per se. But I do care about matters of policy and how they affect our lives, and on that basis I say, let the rich pay their fair share again.

[ProudDad]

18. Because it's another victory of the uber-rich

in the Class war that they're winning...

It's another $700 BILLION shoveled into the pockets of the Uber-Rich at the expense (on the credit card) of CURRENT and future generations...

<Self-edited to remove snarky comment>

[trueblue2007]

21. Duh .... THE RICH ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE of taxes!!

The Rich have HUNDREDS of loopholes in the tax structure. They can make it so they don't pay their fair share of taxes!!

Even Hillary said so!! http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Clinton_The_rich_are_not_paying_their_fair_share.html

May 27, 2010
Categories:Hillary Clinton
Clinton: 'The rich are not paying their fair share'
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a rare foray into domestic politics today, offering her view that — given America's high unemployment — wealthy Americans don't pay enough taxes.

The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever taxation forms," Clinton told an audience at the Brookings Institute, where she was discussing the administration's new National Security Strategy.

[trueblue2007]

22. Obama should be STONG and stand up to GOP bullies

I feel President Obama should CALL THE GOP BLUFF. Just say NO to the tax cuts for the rich. I'm part of the AMERICAN MAJORITY who disagree with giving tax cuts to the rich!! The "trickle down" philosphy didn't work all of the Bush years and years of Obama's presidency. The tax cuts DO NOT WORK. Give tax cuts to Middle Class and Poor. Approve unemployment and BRING BACK JOBS to the USA


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/what-aspe...

Here are 3 of the most important paragraphs. Read the whole article at link above

Obama thinks he can "persuade" Senate Republicans who are "playing games" about tax cuts. Their strategic (non)negotiating position is that unless they get tax cuts for the top one percent no American will get tax cuts (or any other necessary legislation). They are holding 99% of Americans hostage to benefit the top one percent. Obama thinks that if the Republicans play games he is helpless to resist them no matter how harmful his capitulation will be to the nation.

David Cay Johnston spelled out the winning strategy for the nation in his recent column ("Call Their Bluff, Mr. President"). The Republicans' tax strategy was straight out of Blazing Saddles -- the part where the sheriff is surrounded and responds by taking out his gun, pointing it at his head, and telling the crowd not to move or "I'll shoot." The absurdity of the strategy and the idiocy of the crowd in falling for it is the gag. The Republicans tax strategy involved pointing a triple-barreled gun at their own heads. They were threatening to (1) vote to prevent a tax cut to over 100 million Americans (during a weak recovery from the Great Recession); (2) refuse (two weeks before Christmas) to extend unemployment benefits for millions of long-term unemployed; and, (3) and they were doing all this for the benefit of the wealthiest one percent (which all the polls showed was contrary to the will of Americans). The chances that the Republican Party would pull the trigger on the three-barreled gun they had aimed at their own head was minimal. Indeed, if the Republican leadership did pull the trigger they would be discredited and would have to rush to undo their tax and unemployment policies before the entire Republican Party became anathema to independents and middle and working class Americans. President Clinton, of course, called their bluff on shutting down the government, and turned around his Presidency. Obama, not so much.

White House flacks have had some success in generating columns in the New York Times and the Washington Post claiming that Obama deserves respect for obtaining more stimulus dollars by adopting the Republican proposals. Both of these columns are premised on the false assumption that Obama couldn't call the Republican bluff and produce far more effective stimulus legislation.

[Love Bug]

23. The anger is not about the taxes; it's about once again not being able to trust Obama's word

It's gotten to the point where when he says he supports something I check my watch to see how fast he flip-flops (now THERE's a term we haven't heard since Kerry ran in 04).