Much has been made over the last 48 hours from the report published by the U.S. Census Bureau that the income of the richest 1% of Americans has increased by 275% in the last ten years, while the income of the poorest Americans grew at only a small fraction of that amount. The lowest 60% of earners have lost significant portion of the aggregate income in the U.S. over the last ten years, while the top 20% and top 5% have seen monstrous share increases. Over the last decade, the bottom 50% of people have not grown their net worth measurably. The top 10 percent have tripled their net worth.

The statistics are apolitical and unassailable. The rich are getting richer very, very quickly, while the poor are actually making less on an inflation-adjusted basis, while the middle class is simply disappearing. We have become a nation of haves and have nots.

This situation leads me to a simple question. There is a bitter ideological argument going on in Washington over increased taxation of the wealthiest few percent of Americans. The disagreement is so bitter that it stands in the way of any meaningful negotiation of fiscal reform. The most common argument stated for not increasing taxes on the wealthiest is, "...to tax the job creators would be economically counter-productive".

But the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. Unemployment and underemployment have reached unacceptable levels and now appear to have some permanency at double-digit levels. Very simply, the "job creators" aren't creating any jobs. They are simply increasoing their own net worth and lifestyle while the poor get poorer and the middle class disappears.

So the question is...if you would try to avoid simply repeating a tired ideological soundbite response about taxing the job creators, can anyone explain why it would it be wrong to include increased taxation on both the wealthiest individuals as well as corporations who are getting unneeded tax benefits as an element in a broad program of fiscal reform, including significant cuts in federal spending as well as entitlements?

Remember, I'm saying that any such increased taxes should be an element of a much broader reform of fiscal policy, including significant spending and entitlement cuts, maybe even a phased-in Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

Someone try to answer the question, please.

VillageK could not have stated this dilemma any better!....I'm also confused with the "Occupy groups" across the nation, ultimately WHAT will they accomplish? Really?????

There's no simple answer to the not-so-"simple" question posed.

I think a big part of the problem is what the politicians are calling "Rich".

They continue to denigrate and condemn people making $250,000, as if they were living the same lifestyle and paying the same (lower) federal tax rates as Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, or the many U.S. Senators and Congressmen who are multi-millionaires.

The problem is, many, many small business owners are in that $250k range with their business income reported on their personal returns.

"S Corporation Income

In general, an S corporation does not pay tax on its income. Instead, the income, losses, deductions, and credits of the corporation are passed through to the shareholders based on each shareholder's pro rata share. You must report your share of these items on your return. "
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...117613,00.html

The above is why people are interested in Cain's and Perry's Flat Tax Plans. (Perry's notably has personal, mortgage and charitable deductions for people under $500,000.....not $250,000).

I don't know if there will ever be an acceptable accomplishment as long as almost 50% pay no taxes. And the highest percent of entitlement qualified people are in that percentage that pays no taxes as well.

The rich getting richer and the poor not getting any better has always been a part of civilization, where ever.

I am trying to stay on topic but do have to say the current partisan based class warfare of the current generation's obsession with entitlements and big government do nothing more than create a political platform that is being worked day in and day out...starting with Obama's continual harping on the subject.

As far as the taxation aspect goes, until such time as there is across the board participation in taxation the argument will never go away. If one is to partake of any entitlement program(s) it will need to be based on contributions like Social Security.

Some of us still remember having to pay taxes with as little as a four (4) figure income. Since those days we as a people have become more aware of the do's and don'ts, where the loop holes are and the game of skating on the thinner ice all leading to either paying lessor or no taxes.

The answer will only come to pass when the politicians own up to the issue. You cannot have almost half not paying any taxes with their hand out. You cannot have the likes of GE paying no taxes. You cannot have up to 40% of American and off shore companies operating here in America ALSO paying no taxes.

A major tax reform has to take place to bring the system any where near fair. The politics of the situation will not allow such a disruption to their fat and happy business as usual.

btk

You also need to understand that the people who are "rich" and the people who are "poor" are always in flux. Many, many of the poor are new immigrants, legal and illegal. Many of the old poor are no longer in that catagory, but have achieved.

This subject is discussed as if the people in those catagories are stagnant.

I guess I don't understand why anyone would believe that "the rich" aren't paying taxes on that 275% increase in income.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Much has been made over the last 48 hours from the report published by the U.S. Census Bureau that the income of the richest 1% of Americans has increased by 275% in the last ten years, while the income of the poorest Americans grew at only a small fraction of that amount. The lowest 60% of earners have lost significant portion of the aggregate income in the U.S. over the last ten years, while the top 20% and top 5% have seen monstrous share increases. Over the last decade, the bottom 50% of people have not grown their net worth measurably. The top 10 percent have tripled their net worth.

The statistics are apolitical and unassailable. The rich are getting richer very, very quickly, while the poor are actually making less on an inflation-adjusted basis, while the middle class is simply disappearing. We have become a nation of haves and have nots.

This situation leads me to a simple question. There is a bitter ideological argument going on in Washington over increased taxation of the wealthiest few percent of Americans. The disagreement is so bitter that it stands in the way of any meaningful negotiation of fiscal reform. The most common argument stated for not increasing taxes on the wealthiest is, "...to tax the job creators would be economically counter-productive".

But the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. Unemployment and underemployment have reached unacceptable levels and now appear to have some permanency at double-digit levels. Very simply, the "job creators" aren't creating any jobs. They are simply increasoing their own net worth and lifestyle while the poor get poorer and the middle class disappears.

So the question is...if you would try to avoid simply repeating a tired ideological soundbite response about taxing the job creators, can anyone explain why it would it be wrong to include increased taxation on both the wealthiest individuals as well as corporations who are getting unneeded tax benefits as an element in a broad program of fiscal reform, including significant cuts in federal spending as well as entitlements?

Remember, I'm saying that any such increased taxes should be an element of a much broader reform of fiscal policy, including significant spending and entitlement cuts, maybe even a phased-in Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

Someone try to answer the question, please.

Your solution clearly and absolutely identifies a quantum leap from capitalism to a Marxist "spread the wealth" economic system. It is certain that many disciples of socialism and communism would agree with you emphatically. It would be difficult in this forum to define a macro view of Marxism and its defined and intended metamorphosis from capitalism to socialism to communism. With great and calculated oversimplification, the Marxist concept of history and economies are divided into six epochs.

Primitive Communism
Slave Society
Feudalism
Capitalism
Socialism
Communism

The Communist Manifesto in part, calls for:

the promotion and instigation of class warfare

"a heavy progressive income tax"

abolition of the right to inheritance

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State

It then ends by declaring an alliance with the social democrats, boldly supporting other communist revolutions, and calling the proletarians to action, ending with the rallying cry of communism, "Workers of the world, unite!". If you really get into it, you may want to check a fellow by the name of Lenin, not the Beatle. Lenin postulated that socialism equates to Marx's first phase of communism. Has the redistribution of wealth you suggest worked well in communist countries we know today? Have the communist countries advanced freedom, liberty and democratic societies like our "evil" capitalistic system? The question is purely rhetorical.

Of course the case against "redistribution of the wealth" is gaining in popularity. One has only to look to our socialist/communist neighbors in Europe to determine how that whole Marxist thing is working for them. Counter arguments to spreading the wealth include the fact that it doesn't create or spread prosperity. More importantly, wealth spreading is NOT a government function except for socialists and communists. Then the ruling elite gets to pick the winners and losers. Hmmmm......does that sound familiar? Does "Going Galt" mean anything to you? Galt is a character in an Ayn Rand novel. He's a successful businessman who withdraws from the economy because of punitive (spread the wealth) taxation and costly regulations. The term "GOING GALT" refers to those producers and job creators who pull out of the economy or downsize because the risk and effort to be efficiently productive and profitable has been compromised by rewarding victims selected by the government through the type of redistribution you suggest. Your suggestion has clearly been ascribed to an economic system that can be defined in cursory reviews of Marxism, socialism and communism. That is disturbing to many.

I recently reread the Communist Manifesto (1848) and some of Marx and Engels other work. A lot of its ideas and ideology could be right out of Sunday's NYT headlines. I'm not admittiing I actually read the Old Grey Lady...I just heard. I'm sure some in the current administration are conversant with the works of Marx and Engels. They keep them right alongside their copies of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

We are in complete agreement about the "Balanced Budget" amendment. Have a good evening.

Nicely done Cabo. A wealth of info and ideas to think about; thanks.

I just want to know if the test will only cover what's on the board or are we responsible for reading the book also? LOL

EB

Originally Posted by billethkid

I don't know if there will ever be an acceptable accomplishment as long as almost 50% pay no taxes.

I think this is the basic problem. It's the perception that the 'poor' pay no taxes.

That may be true of the income tax, but they most certainly DO pay sales taxes, FICA, excise taxes, etc. I'm looking for the numbers that I read a couple of weeks ago that showed how, when you add up all the taxes, the picture of who's paying what percentage of taxes changes DRAMATICALLY. This is largely due to sales taxes and other similar taxes.

I think this is the basic problem. It's the perception that the 'poor' pay no taxes.

I really think that most poeple know that when they say that the poor pay no taxes they mean income tax.
It always sounds like a very weak defense to me that they pay all these other taxes. I think that most of those taxes are offset by the hand outs or entitlements that they recieve.

Now I don't have any problem if the uber rich want to pay more, more power to them. But saying the poor are poor because of the rich is not right (not saying you said that MHO).
They are rich for so many different reasons and the poor are poor for just as many reasons. Still no reason to take it from the rich to give it to the poor.
I was poor, very poor. Our house was condemned while we lived in it.
I did not think that someone should give me one. I wanted to know how to EARN money to get one and live at a higher standard. I do and am proud of that.
What I think is missing is pride in earning what you want. You don't get that from taking handouts from the gov.
EB

Originally Posted by notlongnow

I just want to know if the test will only cover what's on the board or are we responsible for reading the book also? LOL

EB

It will be an open book test. Those with the highest scores will have their points reduced by a secret panel and added to or redistributed to the low and failing scores of those who didn't work or study so underachievers will be on an equal footing with the more resourceful, driven participants. In other words, everybody passes with a C-. In true Marxist style, this system will perpetuate mediocrity, stifle initiative and kill the motivation to satisfy intellectual curiosity and achievement.

I Love It

I don't think you'll find many people advocating giveaway programs to the poor.

...that is, depending on what you think Medicare and Social Security are in that respect.

We need revenues to rebuild our infrastructure - and by that I mean everything from roads to schools.

It's not going to be so much 'taking away from the rich' to 'give to the poor' as it is having 'the rich' pay for what we're trying to maintain. I think it's far more likely to try and institute policies that will strengthen the middle class which has been declining for some time now.

The facts are that we're taxed at a lower rate overall than any time since the 1950s (which a few posters say is the kind of time that they long to return to).

The old days of Democrat giveaway plans are a thing of the past, I think. After all, remember that it was during the Clinton administration when welfare reform was passed and the prescription drug plan was passed under Bush - so you can't make the same kinds of predictions that used to be standard talking points. Now, you may have arguments about some kinds of programs that will undoubtedly come out - like what to do about student debt, if you take Obama's recent speeches as an augur.

is it Marxist to roll back the tax rates to the pre Bush times?