[R-G] Tax The Rich, Then Eat Them
garyrumor2 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 18 21:05:40 MDT 2010
Tax The Rich, Then Eat ThemSeptember 18th, 2010
Modest proposals to raise taxes on the rich are getting flack from the right.
Deficit Hawks are now squawking about how the small businesses will be hurt
that generate jobs, but apparently most of these businesses the Republicans are
worried about, are not exactly small. Most of them are very big, they are the
ones with the lobbyists who can make the most noise.
The Tea Parties seem to be falling right in line with the Republicans. Are they
as independent and insurgent as they are made out to be? I think not. Perhaps
the foot soldiers are, but when politicians gets to Washington, they fall in
line or find themselves left out of the game. Look at Bernie Sanders our lone
socialist. He has to play footsie with the Democrats or play by himself. We
need real change, not window dressing. I say get it over with and eat the rich,
then we redistribute the wealth and set up workers control of the economy, but
I dream. Here is the news.
“Posted by Chuck Collins at 5:02 am
September 16, 2010
Five Reasons to Let the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich Expire
Article printed from speakeasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy
URL to article:
Congress is actively debating whether to retain President Bush’s 2001 and 2003
tax cuts for the wealthy that are due to expire at the end of this year.
President Obama supports extending tax cuts for households with incomes under
$250,000, but ending the tax breaks for higher income households.
Here are five good reasons for Congress to let them go.
1. Borrowing to Give the Rich Tax Breaks is a Really Bad Idea. We’ve already
borrowed $700 billion since 2001 to pay for these tax cuts. Maintaining them
for another decade would cost an estimated $700 billion, plus interest on the
national debt estimated at $126 billion. Does it really make sense to send
interest payments to China and millionaire bond-holders in the U.S. –so that we
can cut taxes for U.S. millionaires and billionaires?
2. There are 700 Billion Better Ways to Use the Money. Consider the superior
ways to spend $700 billion. We could use a portion to reduce budget deficits.
We could make long overdue investments in infrastructure such as bridges,
roadways, railroads, water treatment facilities, retrofitting buildings –things
that make our economy strong and competitive. We could direct funds to make the
transition to the new economy that is less dependent on foreign oil. In the
short-term, all these investments would create millions of jobs. In the long
term, it would put the economy on better footing for the future. There are a
billion better ways to use the money.
3. Restores Balance to Tax Code. Over the last half century, Congress has
steadily reduced tax obligations for the very rich and global corporations.
Between 1960 and 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers –the wealthiest
one in one thousand –have seen the share of their income paid in total federal
taxes drop from 60 to 33.6 percent. Restoring the tax rates to pre-2001 levels
would be a very slight increase, yet begin the process of rebalancing the tax
4. It Won’t Hurt the Economy. You’ve heard the blather about how taxing the
rich is going to hurt the economy. But cutting the taxes for the wealthy are
an ineffective way to help the economy. A recent analysis by the Congressional
Budget Service ranked 11 strategies to spur the economy and create jobs.
Cutting taxes for the rich was the worst ranked strategy. Here’ the reality:
Taxing the rich is different than taxing the middle class. The rich save more
of their tax cuts while working people and middle class spend it in the
economy. Over the last decade, the top wealth holders have shifted trillions of
dollars into speculative investments that have hurt the economy.
5. Reduces the Dangerous Concentration of Wealth and Power. We’re living in a
period of unprecedented economic inequality. A recent series in the online
journal Slate examined the “Growing Divergence” of wealth and income. Taxes is
one of the ways we reduce these inequalities.
A final reason is that the U.S. public supports letting these tax cuts for the
rich expire. A recent Gallup Poll reveals that 59 percent of the population
support letting the tax cuts for the rich expire –while 37 percent support
extending them. Polls rarely reveal support for any form of taxation –which
indicates that a majority of Americans –including those who will pay the hire
taxes – recognize the imprudence of extending them. Alan Greenspan, who
supported the tax cuts in 2001, has now reversed his position and believes the
time has come to raise taxes.
Take action: Organizations such as Wealth for the Common Good and Americans
for Responsible Taxes are working to build public support for letting the tax
From the NY Times
“Tax Increase Would Hit Few Small Businesses
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: September 17, 2010
Mr. Obama wants to extend the cuts for most taxpayers. But he proposes
eliminating them for the top 2 percent of wage earners, whose taxes would rise.
Opponents of the plan warn that a tax increase would batter hundreds of
thousands of small businesses — from Silicon Valley start-ups to mom-and-pop
convenience stores — and prevent them from creating the jobs that might lift
the sagging economy.
“It’s a body blow to the small-business community,” said Grover Norquist,
president of the conservative advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform.
Despite that emotional appeal, Internal Revenue Service statistics indicate
that only 3 percent of small businesses would be subject to the higher tax, and
many studies of previous tax increases suggest that it would have minimal
impact on hiring.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 97 percent of all businesses
owners do not earn enough to be subject to the higher rates, which would be
levied on income of over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families.
Even among the 750,000 businesses that would be subjected to the higher rates
in 2011, many are sole proprietors — a classification so amorphous it can
include everyone from corporate executives who earn income on rental property
to entertainers, hedge fund managers and investment bankers. Because 80 percent
of America’s 32 million businesses are sole proprietorships, 90 percent of the
tax cut would be derived from businesses without employees.
Trade groups lobbying to extend the tax break for wealthy Americans argue that
when hobbyists and home-based enterprises are removed from the equation, the
total number of businesses affected is closer to 8 percent. Those companies are
responsible for nearly half of all business revenue generated in the country,
and according to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, would be less
likely to invest or hire if subjected to higher rates.
But much of the research over the last two decades has found that increases in
top tax rates can lead to an increase in the formation of small businesses, as
wealthy individuals apparently begin start-ups to avail themselves of the more
generous tax breaks offered to businesses.”
This is from the Washington Post
“House Dems: Many businesses that face Obama tax hike are too big to be labeled
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 17, 2010; 6:10 PM
Republicans oppose President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the nation’s
wealthiest households because, they say, many small businesses - a major engine
of job growth - would be slapped with a tax hike.
“The top 2 or 3 percent” of all small businesses would see their taxes go up
under the Obama plan, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) fumed this week. “That’s
750,000 to 800,000 small businesses! That create most of the jobs in our
The thing is, some of those businesses are not particularly small. In fact,
they’re quite large.
Alan Viard, an economist in the Bush White House who is now at the American
Enterprise Institute, agreed that many firms represented in the top tax
brackets are hardly small. Economically, that doesn’t matter, he said: Obama
would still be raising taxes on a significant source of jobs and economic
Politically, however, it’s a very different matter to raise taxes on a Wall
Street hedge fund than it is to tax your neighborhood dry cleaner. Which is why
Republicans continually define pass-through entities of all sizes as small
businesses, a position Viard called a “fallacy.”
“How can it be that 3 percent of owners are accounting for 50 percent of small
business income? Those firms they’re owning can’t be all that small,” Viard
said. “And that’s true. They’re very large.”
Added Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of House leadership who heads the
committee charged with electing House Democrats: “Republicans are trying to
disguise this issue as a small business issue when the facts tell a different
story. Among the major beneficiaries are hedge funds, billion-dollar private
equity funds, major Washington lobbying firms and other million-dollar special
And this From Washington Post
The true test of tea parties’ mettle
By Ezra Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 18, 2010; 6:20 PM
“The Republicans are proposing to increase the deficit by about $4 trillion by
extending all of the Bush tax cuts and the Democrats are countering with an
offer to increase the deficit by a bit more than $3 trillion by extending only
the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year. Look at those numbers
again: $4 trillion and $3 trillion. That’s vastly more deficit spending than
the stimulus, bank bailouts, health-care bill (which actually reduces the
deficit) and everything else we’ve done in the past few years combined.
But will the tea party candidates, when it comes down to it, be any different
from the Republican Party that serves as their uncomfortable home? As of yet,
there’s little sign of it. The tea parties may be something new in American
politics, or at least something rare. They’re grass-roots, decentralized and
deeply authentic. But their candidates sound, well, like any other politicians.
Take Paul. The Lexington-Herald Leader asked him whether the Bush tax cuts
should be fully extended. “Absolutely,” he replied. “The money is not the
government’s. It is ours.” The problem, of course, is that we, as a democratic
society, granted the government the power to tax that money in order to spend
it on things we thought important, such as national defense and Social
Security. If you take away the revenue but don’t cut the spending, you get
deficits. And the tea party hates deficits.
So how would Paul pay for the tax cuts? Paul said he “couldn’t spell out a
proposal to do that before the November 2 election.” And even if he does spell
out a proposal after the election, the one put forward by the GOP’s leadership
doesn’t pay for itself. Will Paul vote against it - will he in fact filibuster
his own party - unless it adds $4 trillion in spending cuts over the next
Paul isn’t alone. Christine O’Donnell, who scored the upset in Delaware, rails
against the deficit but says we “absolutely” have to extend the Bush tax cuts.
That’s $4 trillion straight to the deficit’s hips. How will she pay for it?
“Waste,” of course. Anyone who’s been around Washington for even a day or two
is familiar with that dodge.
Then there’s the Mama Grizzly herself. Sarah Palin may be the patron saint of
the tea parties, but when she gets on Fox News, she’s just another politician.
Last month, Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace asked about the tension
between extending the tax cuts for the rich and balancing the budget.
“Republicans keep talking about being deficit hawks,” he said. “This is $678
billion you are not going to pay for.” Palin refused to even grant the premise.
“No, this is going to result in the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
Again, it’s idiotic. My palm isn’t large enough to have written all my notes
down on what this tax increase, what it will result in.”
More information about the Rad-Green