How do you "soak the rich"?

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 03/14/2009 - 22:57

When there are a lot fewer rich people to soak?

The number of American households with a net worth of $1 million or more, excluding the value of their primary residence, fell 27% to 6.7 million in 2008 from an all-time high of 9.2 million the year before, according to a report from market research firm Spectrem Group

Notice this occurred before we had a whole bunch of rich folks "going Galt" This was just due to the drop in equity and real estate values.

Message to Obama and co. If you want to have rich people to soak in order to pay for all your fun stuff, hmmm, maybe that means we need to have....hmmm ...rich people.

Maybe letting the Bush tax cuts hang around until there's , a hmmm a recovery might work better than getting rid of them in the middle of a economic crisis?

Of course, if income equality is the new holy grail, don;t bother. The one way to ensure income equality is to enact policies that make sure no one has any money. And some people think you've done a splendid job on that front already.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Ironman's blog

Comments

compassionate conservatism

Submitted by Tucker on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 04:58.

Everyone should have the right to receive a reasonable share of his or her earnings. However, middle-income families are getting ripped off & can barely survive the cost of health care, college tuition, mortgage, and savings. I know how lowering rates might promote growth, but people are stretched-out and it's time for an extensive renovation of policy. Capitalism can only account for greed but so much and finally economic inequality does become a problem. Responsible capitalism with a healthy middle-class produces our continued greatness. How's it said? Change doesn't come easy.. an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure?.. All that. Everyone should have the right to receive a reasonable share of his or her earnings.

Instead of taxing others...

Submitted by ddemilo on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 01:10.

How about askig the government to stop taxing YOU... income, FICA, FUTA, sales, gas, etc. etc. Add it all up and the state takes 30-45% if you're in the middle. Maybe instead of asking the state to take from others and give to the middle, the middle should ask to keep their own money!

How do you provide government aid for the middle class?

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 06:50.

When the folks who pay a disproportionate share of state and federal revenue have their incomes and net worth slashed and no longer provide the existing revenue stream that governments were using for social programs?

Actually, I'm not going to argue about the morality of any certain tax rate. The point is that empirically high rates discourage growth and encourage tax shelters and gaming the system. I would also suggest the economy tolerates high marginal tax rates in era of low stress (the 50's , 60's and 90's) better than eras of high stress (the 30's; the 70's and now).

Since I presume you want to add to the present list of supportive government programs out there if you don't get the revenue then you have to borrow it. Are you an advocate then of "Buzz Lightyear economics"?

JFK cut the rate on high earners and increased economic growth. Not because he was a beliver in trickle down economics but because he wanted more revenue to pay for the Cold War and social programs. And without growth, we aren't going to pay for baby boomer retirements or maintain superpower status via-a-vis China, Does a broke second tier nation work for you? It might be "fairer" ; it wouldn't be better, at least not compared to the nation I grew up in.

If Obama thinks the top bracket ought to pay more , well that's what he ran on. But I find his attitude and yours --now's the time to run down the economy---sadly reminiscent of the bizarre belief in the Vietnam War " we had to destroy the village in order to save it"

health care reform

Submitted by Tucker on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 09:01.

I'll give you.. Lower tax rates produce growth. Will you give me.. the middle-class is struggling? I'll give you.. capitalism works best without government intervention. Will you give me.. the cost of health care is extremely high? I'll give you.. the higher tax bracket pays more tax. Will you give me.. the middle-class is getting poorer?

You use the word "give" a lot

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 09:42.

The public sector can't "give" what the private sector doesn't "have".

If you think the government ought to subsidize middle class health care costs then you need to also get your arms around you need to have the most robust private economy possible to pay for this

Well the system we are follow

Submitted by edwardj on Mon, 05/25/2009 - 04:42.

Well the system we are follow lead middle class to poorer and rich people becoming richer.

Hill University

How is returning to the tax rates of the Clinton era "soaking"?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 09:54.

How is returning to the tax rates of the Clinton era "soaking"? Becasue that is what we are doing.,

Not quite

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 11:02.

Clinton's tax plan didn;t take away tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving

Obama's plan is harder on wealthy people than Clinton's was and the economy is weaker. And we are not going to get low interest "Rubinomics" in the out years to restore investor confidence, given the "Buzz Lightyear economics" we are going to pursue. We are going to clobber the producer and investor class with both high taxes and inflation.

And speciifcally, why would you address a crash in housing prices by making it harder for creditworhy people to pay for mortgages on McMansions? Or is that the new "affordable housing" initiative I missed?

I think even a a dyed in the wool liberal would see the prudence in waiting for the economy to stabilize before running the bath to "soak the rich" ? But obviously income redistribution is both the end and the means to the Obama camp, and as I pointed out, making everyone poor makes us very equal very quickly.

Obama's tax plan doesn't take away those tax deductions either

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 11:08.

Nice try, but Obama is NOT eliminating tax deductions for mortgage interest or charitable contributions.

Really!

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 11:12.

Guess Max Baucus didn;t get your memo.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's proposal to limit itemized tax deductions for high earners is running into opposition from key Democrats in Congress who worry that charities and the housing market would be hurt. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus questioned Wednesday whether the proposal was viable, a day after his House counterpart also expressed reservations

You said "take away"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 11:23.

No one is talking about "taking away" deducations.

Please

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 11:55.

Are we back to defining what "is""is"?

Let's go to the videotape

something taken back or away, esp. an employee benefit that is eliminated or substantially reduced by the terms of a union contract

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/take%20away

Evidenly Baucus and Hoyer believe tax deductions are to be "substantially reduced". Can I help it if I agree with senior Democrats on this point?

Let me quote your words back to you

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 12:17.

You said:

Clinton's tax plan didn;t take away tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving

Well, no one is talking about taking away tax deductions. They are talking about reducing them a few points.

You also complained about "soaking the rich". Well, how is returning to the tax rates of the Clinton years with perhaps the addition of reducing two categories of deductions by a few points "soaking"?

Well on the issue of semantics

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 12:20.

You simply aren't "returning to the tax rates of the Clinton years" if you reduce their allowable tax deductions by approximately 40% and put the Clinton rates in place. It is unquivocally a greater tax burden. . If that isn't "taking away' something, mind explaining what your defintion of "adding" is?

The fact you guys have to deny reality here sorta proves me point.

I'm not the one protesting about the rich being "soaked"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 12:24.

You are the one protesting about the rich being soaked - and yet I'm the one who is not in touch with reality? I don't think so.

NRN, kindly take a gander at your state's balance sheet

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 12:49.

and look at how much tax revenue already evaporated from the top 1% of the taxpayers. CT is in a deep hole because of that. But go ahead, let's just assume there's more cash to be had there. Because we must not allow the facts to get in the way of our ideology.

Please tell me NRN, would be be better to raise taxes now or in 2012? Don't you think it makes sense to get an economic recovery before we do income redistribution?

You can;t soak the rich unless there are rich people to soak.

.. and on the point on Obama being a bigger taxer than Clinton, I suppose the NY Times is out spouting Karl Rove propaganda now. Thought you'd want to read it anyway.

Explain what you meand by "evaporated"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 12:59.

look at how much tax revenue already evaporated from the top 1% of the taxpayers

I don't understand what you are saying - specifically, what do you mean by "evaporated".

I am sure that in 2012 tools like you will still be wailing about "soaking the rich", so the timing really doesn't matter.

There is nothing in the link your provided that compares Obama and Clinton re the extent of their taxation.

Want some reality?

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 14:01.

http://www.wtic.com/Some-of-Connecticut-s-Deficit-Woes-Tied-to-Market/3344141

When hedge funds in Greenwich( which contributes 13% of state revenue with 2% of the population) go broke, teachers in Groton face layoffs

The state expects conditions to worsen. If the problems deepen, other towns might soon envy the days they could effortlessly envy Greenwich – while enjoying the benefit of the tax revenue from all those big salaries.

also

nearly 50 percent of the state’s income tax revenue comes from 70,000 people in Fairfield County, many of whom work on Wall Street.

So NRN, since you love semantics, I'll provide the definition of "evaporated"

To disappear; vanish: Our fears at last evaporated.

That is exactly what has happened to billions of dollars of anticipated tax revenue in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 CT state budget. Parse those words.

So - you want to prop up the hedge funds?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 14:19.

Ironman, you are truly bizarre. In this post and your subsequent comments you have lamented the plight of the rich, worried about McMansions not finding buyers, and now seem to be saying that we need to prop up hedge fund managers.And then you wonder why the other side wins elections.

Naw, Geithner does

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 14:23.

http://capitalbeat.com/?p=1310

NRN you are great with the class warfare rhetoric but you never bother to explain who is going to pay the bills in CT if the rich people aren;t making any money. Are they going to tax delusions in your state to balance the budget?

Trickle down is D-E-A-D

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 14:40.

Get with the program, Ironman - trickle down is dead.

well, your spelling has improved

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 14:50.

your reasoning, not so much

citations, not.

Look at the graphs

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 15:33.

For my citation, look at the graphs showing the gap between federal revenue and spending in the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Huh?

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 15:53.

Fighting wars (cold or hot ) costs money and they borrowed it. So?

Let me be a bit more contemporary. The CT state tax structure already tried the "cut taxes for the lower income" approach Obama suggests. Basically if you own a house or a car you don;t pay on the first $40K you earn. It works fine as long as the top 1% are making lots of cash. They are the ones primarly paying for teaching kids and police in the less affluent towns.

When the rich people stop being rich, tax receipts fall off a cliff and the demand for public services doesn't. That's the "trickle down" economics you get from "progressive taxation". The provision of middle class services then simply requires the affluent stay affluent.

The converse of that is the "progressive taxation" works a lot better in a growing economy than a shrinking one. While I still might be opposed to class warfare anyway, at least waiting for the economy to recover means the tax hikes will yield some money. Isn;t that why you want to raise taxes, or is it just to play morality cop against those awful rich people?

But why bother with facts?. You'll find some insult on the HuffPo and recycle it. Yawn

Same tired Ironman MO

Submitted by artigiano on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 12:13.

I've seen this movie. Spoiler alert.

Act One:

Ironman carefully chooses a word or words such that they deliberately and subtly mislead the listener into believing a falsehood, while still having a tenuous relationship to the actual facts. Such as describing a 3% reduction from 36% down to 33%, as taking away a deduction.

Act Two:

Someone else calls him on his choice of words and points out that their meaning has no, or very little relationship to known reality.

Act Three:

Ironman responds by asserting that it is not him, but you who is being overly selective and exact about choosing words such that their meanings convey a given message.

THE END

I can't wait for the sequel for the big scene at the end when Darth Rove says "Ironman, I am your father. Join me and together we will rule the political galaxy!"

Sounds cool

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 12:17.

How about we get Colin Farrell to play me and we get Harrison Ford to play Rove?

Obama using Socialism.

Submitted by lord3drx on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 09:43.

Obama is just a socialist and wants to redistribute the wealth of rich people. Joe the Plumber was brave enough to stand upto Obama and reveal his true plans for the economy. I am a Christian and I believe that God wanted people to live in capitalism because it is the fairest form of government in the world. Obama is from a muslim background and believes basically what the Soviet Union did because he wants to take from the rich and give it all to the poor. This country can't survive with socialism/communism because it is against our nature. Hopefully Joe the Plumber will run for congress/senate and restore order to the Republic. Obama wants our country to fail because he wants to add more socialist/communist reforms to our economy and to redistribute wealth from the people who worked really hard and earned all their money to people who are lazy and leech off of our big bloated federal government paid for by honest hard working people like myself.

PS: SARAH PALIN 2012!!!! WE WANT TRIG'S MOM!!!!