Open Thread

Yep. Still too low. Tax ’em more. lots more.

(yawn) Of course they larger sums of money. That’s how percentages work. And Screw the top 1%. I’ve seen the ridiculous ways they live, and they can kiss my ass. They should be thankful we don’t murder them in their sleep.

The idea that the [hyper-] wealthy are responsible for all the nation’s prosperity is silly, especially phrased in a way that implies that their wealthiness is what is making them innovative/etc (most innovated first, then became wealthy). And I don’t see why we shouldn’t value the 99% who actually do the jobs more than this magical 1% whose richness somehow makes them responsible for jobs (and here i thought it was those old-fashioned workers, the ones with the soaring productivity, who keep working more for less. But I guess you’re right, it must be the one or two people at the top of a company who are actually responsible for its entire output.)

(recalling, as I do, the terrible period of the 1950s, where science and technology stood still under crushing taxation… or the space program, the personal computer, etc., all developed by the tax-haven of the canary islands while we stood idly by)

But, hey, let’s pretend that’s not hogwash. Fine. I’ll let the hyperrich be taxed at whatever half-assed rate they’re taxed at now. But, as a trade, I’ll tax everyone who makes between 150k and 5million at 50%. I mean, they’re not doing anything productive, as you’ve already pointed out, it’s the really rich people who run stuff. So, I’ll just take these middle-managers money. Won’t hurt innovation, it’ll be great.

Let me know where to send you your bill.

The top 1% of the nation’s “wage earners” are the
group that sponsor new jobs, new businesses, new
ideas who then employ the other 99% of the
population.

I’d argue that in actuality the top 1% of wage earners are primarily corporate executives who manage to make even more money while middle class incomes have actually declined over the last decade. I’m having a hard time understanding why cutting the taxes of people that already make more money than they could spend in several lifetimes sponsors new jobs.

Ha! dibs, you’re getting started early this morning.

That’s a weak argument the Dems are making, but if you include all the tax codes available to top earners that allow them to lower their burden it gives their argument SOME weight (not much though). Even Buffet admitted the way the tax code is written allows him to pay less in taxes than his secretary.

Flat tax on all and a VAT.

Here’s how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts affects everyone:

Those earning less than $16,750/year
presently pay a marginal income tax rate of 10%. That
will go to 15%, or an increase of 50%. Those with
incomes of more than $16,750 but less than $68,000,
shall pay a marginal tax rate of 15%, and interestingly
it shall remain at that rate. They are the great
beneficiaries, if one actually benefits when nothing
really happens. Those earning more than $68,000 but
less than $137,300 shall pay a marginal income tax
rate of 28%, up from 25%, or an increase of 12%. For
those in the $137,001 – $209,250 income bracket, their
tax rate shall move up, at the margin, from 28% to
31%, or an increase of just under 11%. From
$209,251 – $373,650, the current margin income tax
rate shall move up from 33% to 36%, or an increase of
10% and finally, for those earning $373,651 and
above, their marginal income tax rate shall move up
from 35% to 39.6%, an increase of 13%.

The Left argues that the “rich are not paying their fair
share,” and argue further that the tax increases fall
disproportionately upon the “poor” rather than the “rich”
given that the margin income tax rate for the lowest
income level rises 50% while the marginal tax rate
upon the highest income level shall rise “only” 13%, but
the Left forgets that the highest income levels pay
disproportionately larger sums of money into the
federal government than do the lower levels, with the
top 1% of the nation’s income earnings paying in 36%
of the total tax revenues taken in by Washington, while
the other 99% pay the remainder even as the top 1%
earn 19% of the nation’s income.
The top 1% of the nation’s “wage earners” are the
group that sponsor new jobs, new businesses, new
ideas who then employ the other 99% of the
population. Tax them too hard and their propensity, at
the margin, to take risks shall falter. It is only human
nature… something the Left simply conveniently
forgets.