It's super simple buddy. The rich and even the not so rich are hunkered down waiting to see what the next costly inanity this administration will attemp to foist upon us.

You're right spot on orcaspapa!

The Watcher,

That's total B.S.

we, the people could elect politicians who'll undo NAFTA.

we'd have to threaten to burn the entire United States down to the ground in order to get any politicians to follow through once elected, but I say its worth the gamble. it seems, the rich only pay attention when you are storming their gates and threatening THEIR way of life.

How much do the rich get to earn? What percentage is fair? Do we tax them until they are no longer rich? We discriminate based on earnings. This decreases a wealthy individual's desire to do business in America.

Taxation isn't the problem. The problem is the tax system. Why should someone who makes a specific amount of money be taxed at a higher rate? Everyone should pay the same percentage just as we all do at Wal-Mart. Walmart doesn't ask your income level before adding tax to the bill do they?

The problem is spending. We spend too much on EVERYTHING. Everything needs to be cut. Cut defense, education, security, welfare, etc. I know of too many people on the government teat that don't want to get off of assistance. They love the free money. They all can work and most do under-the-table. Give people the motivation to be more responsible and less dependent. There are millions out there that need help. There are millions more milking the system. Cut spending and government or we are going to fall apart as a nation!

The Watcher

The rich and even the not so rich are hunkered down waiting to see what the next costly inanity this administration will attemp to foist upon us.

You people need to stop and think about what you are saying. It's one of the most backwards arguments possible... that demand is there but they won't expand due to uncertainty? Wrong. The demand just isn't there. Any business person worth a grain of salt would jump on any truly available opportunity, but these are few and far between at the moment. We need something the GOP has purposely tried to suppress... called consumer confidence. Their negativity has won the day. They should be congratulated for their outstanding efforts to "make Obama (and this recovery) fail".

No one in their right mind hires an employee just because they have money in their pocket. They hire because the person they employ will make them some money. Those who believe that there should be severe cuts in the government now are wrong because cuts mean more layoffs and even higher unemployment. That is an even weaker economy in which corporations and other businesses will continue their non-hiring ways.

In the meantime, the wealthy are much more likely to buy a (foreign) car, invest (overseas) or just sit on their cash.

They're "hunkered down" because there is no demand for their product. What is left of the middle class has no disposable income to spend. So, with no demand, why should they create more jobs? They aren't worried about what new policy this Administration will come up with.. Corporate America has prospered the most under this Administration..By cutting jobs and benefiting from increased worker productivity, Corporations have never had it so good..

@The Watcher - They have been "hunkered down" for a lot longer than this President has been in office

"we, the people could elect politicians who'll undo NAFTA."

LMAO. "We the People". In what dream land are you living?

No such thing is We the People. It's those in power and the rest of you serving them.

What a confused society we are.

To The Watcher: what color is the sky in your world? My company earned almost $1B last year and they haven't hired a single new employee. The hunkering down began long before Obama came into the White House.

Stop blindly swallowing Beck and Limbaugh and try NPR once in awhile.

RICK SANTORUM: "The problem is that we have spending that has exploded. The government's averaged 18 percent of GDP as the percentage of the overall economy. ... And we're now at almost 25 percent. Revenues are down about 2 or 3 percent. So if you look at where the problem is, the problem is in spending, not taxes."

THE FACTS: The former Pennsylvania senator might have been mixing statistics on federal spending with federal revenue. The White House budget office has estimated that federal spending this year will equal about 25 percent of the country's $15 trillion economy -- the highest proportion since World War II. But federal spending has averaged nearly 22 percent since 1970. In fact, federal spending has not been as low as 18 percent since 1966. Since the 1970s, federal revenues have averaged nearly 19 percent of the U.S. economy. This year's revenues are expected to equal just over 14 percent of the economy, the lowest level since 1950.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem.

Corporate taxes are down to 9% of all federal revenues - their lowest level in American history. And what we're not losing due to lack of proper tax policies we're giving away - Exxon/Mobil got a $48 MILLION refund last year and paid $0 taxes.

Super rich pay a lot less in federal taxes than they did decades ago
Associated Press, Sunday, April 17, 2011, 1:27 PM

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

"Greed" is no longer a bad name in America. I don't know when the "haves" convinced so many of us that selfishness is good, but I'm not buying it.

Even Adam Smith, economic idol of the right, saw the problem:

In the final edition of the "Theory of Moral Sentiments," written over a decade after "The Wealth of Nations," [Adam Smith] added a chapter in which he describes the "disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition." This disposition, Smith says, colors the way we view the world, leading us to conflate wealth and greatness with virtue and poverty and weakness with vice.

salah.jax - The first weapon of autocrats is to disengage the populace from the political process.

Don't be a tool. Go vote.

Small business is hunkered down. The corporate world has done alright in many cases, but much of it has been due to efficiency gains due to workforce reductions and other types of corporate restructuring. The small businesses that supply the bulk of this nation's jobs do not have the resources that the big corporations do. The federal government won't bail them out like they have the big corporations either. So starting or growing a small business in this climate is even riskier than it typically is.

A small business person will not stick his neck out and take a risk when the conditions are not favorable. They can't afford to. The uncertainty of what's coming down the government pike in the way of taxes and regulations keeps them from investing until conditions are more favorable. Until the uncertainty is gone or at least reduced to tolerable levels.

Would you hire a new employee or invest in infrastructure when you don't know what will be required of you in the way of personal taxes, business taxes, and government mandated requirements for both your old employees and new emploees will be? Best to sit on your haunches and wait it out. The storm could be sizeable and you'd need whatever resources you currently have to weather it.

TAXATION deserves representation...and WE THE PEOPLE want the top 2% taxed more.

The FACTS are on our side.

So, watcher, explain why American workers' productivity has soared over the last decade but they got NONE of it back in wages? ALL those gains were skimmed by the investor class and CEO's:

From USA Today, 3/31/2011:

Good Graph Friday: You're working harder, they're making money

2010 CEO pay chart, sorted by total

Read it and weep.

And then go vote.

From CNN:

Almost lost in the wall-to-wall news coverage of the battle in Washington over the debt ceiling and the convulsions of the stock market was this item:

Merck & Co., the huge pharmaceutical manufacturer, announced that it will be eliminating up to 13,000 jobs through the end of the year 2015. This is in addition to 17,000 job cuts that were previously announced.

That's thousands of families who will newly be cast adrift. The Wall Street Journal explained that "35% to 40% of the new work-force reductions will be in the U.S., while Merck will continue to hire new employees in 'growth areas,' including emerging markets such as China."

And why will those thousands of families be thrust into uncertainty and, perhaps, despair, in an economy where jobs are so scarce? Is it because Merck has been losing money?

Apparently not. The Journal noted that "For the quarter, Merck reported a profit of $2.02 billion, or 65 cents a share, up from $752 million, or 24 cents a share, a year earlier. Revenue increased 7% to $12.15 billion."

American corporations have turned traitor to this country. They take the benefits of being located in the world's biggest economy and give nothing back. 60% pay NO taxes at all, and corporate taxes as a percentage of ALL FEDERAL REVENUES have dropped to only 9%. (Payroll taxes make up 40% and personal income taxes 42%.) In the 1950's corporate taxes contributed 28% and the 1960's 21%.

Corporations are sitting on $1.9 TRILLION in cash that they've hoarded away out of America's economy. It's time they gave some of that back.

Correct Watcher. Yes, those small businesses do see increased demand. However, they are addressing it with over-time from their current work force or temporary help. They aren't going to hire on full time workers - witht he additional HR costs - to address what may be a short term windfall or an increase in revenue that may be severely offset by new regulations or tax environments. Businesses are just like individuals in the current environment; their paying off debt and hoarding cash for a rainy day as opposed to expanding business.

RealAmericansFirst,

Do you have a 401k? Do you have an IRA? Then you are part of that evil investor class.

The Watcher: "Small business is hunkered down."

Quite right. Credit is hard to come by; banks are causing that. The best way I can think of to break small businesses loose is to make the mega corperations actually pay taxes, and turn that money straight into small business loans. It's about time the big boys had their monopoly tree shaken to the root. They are the ones outsourcing our jobs. Just to do one better, add a penalty equal to the difference between a living wage in America and the average salary overseas for each and every outsourced job. No tax breaks until the percentage of workers is at least 51% US jobs. You'll see either jobs coming back, huge corperations folding and making room for small businesses to take over, or a combination of the two. Small businesses built this country. The republicans tell us small business is the key to recovery, and yet they put all their support behind the huge businesses that are tearing us down. Let's see them put their policy where their rhetoric is.

From today's MSNBC article on retailers:

[S]ince the middle of the last decade. U.S. GDP grew by 16 percent.

Did your paycheck go up by the same percentage over the last decade? No? Then I think we should be asking where all that money went.

I've been in banking for 28 years and I've worked with small-to-medium sized companies during my tenure. The question you raise about hiring is an interesting one since these people weigh the benefits of hiring a person with the potential impact on the bottom line. It has nothing to do with government mandates. If, for example adding an employee that costs $100,000 (with benefits) will net $10,000 a year, you make the hire. If demand for you goods or services means you need to add to your warehouse or you will miss sales, you make the hire.

All of these people are in the position they are BECAUSE they make decisions after taking in all of the information. This means accounting for the "uncertainty" you mention and the coming "storm". That is called contingency planing... actually my specialty. So, I know what it means for a small company to try and look into the future and figure out what to do. There are hundreds of companies that are "hunkered down" because they had no plans for disruptions to their revenue streams or they were not prepared for the recession to be as long or deep as it is.

Interesting ideas theCavalier,

However, I think 51% US jobs would kill our economy. The reality of International Economics is that a country should produce products where it has an advantage (usually price). Our low skill/labor jobs are going over seas because the work forces over there are cheaper. The only way to address that is to do something like Singapore has done; they've focused on creating a technology savy, highly skilled workforce through their education system. At that point, the US would primarily be a producer of premium products and only produce commodities where there is a cost advantage (of course we would need to bolster certain industries for national security). One exception would be if a business could find a way to increase efficiencies of the production process to lower the number of employees needed to offset the pay scales.

The top tax rate in the 1950's was 91% (except for 1952 and 1953, when it was 92%).

We have tolerated a "greed is good" mentality for too long in this country. To bring our economy back, we ALL have to do our part. Workers have contributed all the increased productivity they can manage, but they've gotten NOTHING for it. Time for the wealthy and the corporations to step up to the plate.

Correct RealAmericansFirst,

Along with the 15-18% of people of the 47-48% who pay no income tax today, yet, historically have. Everyone needs to contribute.

How do you think they became rich in the first place? By being coddled and catered to! Face it folks! They are better than us, they deserve to be coddled and catered to, they're rich. Maybe, just maybe, they'll give us some table scraps if we cater enough to them.

zoro

Here's a partial list of people who pay no income tax:

• Retired with SS as their only income
• Working poor with families
• Disabled
• Students
• Unemployed
• Homeless
• Corporations and high income earners with lots of deductions

It would be nice if some of you would start thinking more about those who CAN pay taxes rather than those who CAN'T. If there are people who should pay taxes and don't we should correct that problem, but the real problem is that the rich are paying the lowest tax rates in at least six decades and people like you are sticking up for them. Why? Maybe the folks who have lots of income and lots of loopholes should be the ones to get our attention

zoroaster - that bottom % that you claim pay "no" taxes (although they pay at least 7.65% as payroll taxes), have seen their take-home pay reduced consistently since the 1970's.

The top 2%, however, have made off with 100% of the increase in GDP. Who should pay more first?

And American corporations have made out like bandits:

Sources of federal revenue, Fiscal 1950-2008

I'm about to start a small business.

. . . the manufacture of guillotines.

I'll get back to you all in a few years and let you know how it went.

Don97524,

Correct, 49% - 18% equals 31%. Those people you list are the 31%. It would be nice if some of you would start thinking... yeah, that's it... just start thinking, period. I am also advocating higher taxes on the rich and corporations. I just can't justify asking the so called rich (a family making $250,000 is extremely well off, yet, they aren't flying around in private jets like some would have you believe) to do their share when 18% of the lower end of the bracket that can afford to contribute some income taxes aren't being asked to do their share also.

Sorry, the number was 48% this year. Do the math and the rest of my statement holds true.

I like pictures, so here's a couple of great charts from Business Insider:

Re-creating the gap that gave us the Great Depression

Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003

I agree RealAmericansFirst. I'm not advocating a proportional raise across the board. I'm saying that if we want to be fair in asking the "Rich" to pay a heck of a lot more, than we need that 18% to chip in also; even if it's a token contribution. And, yes, we need to address stagnant salaries.

zoroaster - you're using the old Heritage Foundation propaganda to hide the real facts. "Income taxes" are only 42% of federal revenues.

The federal government's sources of revenues come from INCOME taxes, PAYROLL taxes, CORPORATE taxes, EXCISE taxes and a few others.

40% of ALL FEDERAL REVENUES now come from PAYROLL TAXES. Payroll taxes are only paid by working people making less that $103k a year.

The FACT is that poor people pay a BIGGER percentage of their income in taxes than the rich do in this country. And that's wrong.

The rich DO create jobs. But they like to ship them over to Bangalore, Singapore, China, Mexico and Indonesia.

These arguments in favor of low taxes for the rich astound me as an American. In college I studied Latin American History (because I am hispanic). I was so proud then that our country was less like Latin America and was seemingly more like Canada and England (anglo-saxon/wasp/whatever).

Now I see our country becomeing more like Mexico, and less like Canada. When did Mexico and Latin American values become U.S. values? The ruling class deserves their privileges, and the lower classes only serve those ruling classes; remember the Banana Wars, the Cuban revolution, the immigration to the once-great U.S.?

When mexican migrants stop coming to the U.S., and it has, then we have reached a new low. I sincerely want my country back.

@ Victory in WI, post #1.14

The Tea Party is Destroying our America

There, fixed it for you.

The Water: Would you hire a new employee or invest in infrastructure when you don't know what will be required of you in the way of personal taxes, business taxes, and government mandated requirements for both your old employees and new emploees will be?

I would hire new employees if there were sufficient demand for the products I sell. That's exactly the problem with the republican, trickle-down economic theory, though. Coddling the rich leads to an unhealthy economy because it means that the middle class end up making all of the sacrifices.

Economic activity has always been driven mainly by average, middle class folks that have a little extra money to spend. When you cut benefits that go to ordinary Americans, you take money out of the hands of the very people that our economy depends on. If you're struggling to put food on your family's table, you're NOT going to run down to Wal Mart and buy $80 worth of items that you could live without. You're also not going to eat out at restaurants as often, you're not going to take as many vacations, etc, etc.

In short, cutting benefits to ordinary Americans forces people to carefully watch what they spend. While that may elicit howls of approval from republicans, it means that sales (of almost anything) are going to be poor. No matter how much money you give the rich, they're not going to open new stores to sell things that most people can't afford to buy. That's why trickle-down economics will never work -- the money doesn't trickle down.

RealAmericansFirst,

Respectfully, you're the one hiding behind a misleading argument. Those payroll taxes make up such a large part (40%) of revenue because the programs that they are collected to cover - Medicare, Medicaide, Social Security - make up such a large part of the budget. However, those people paying in should, in theory, be getting that money back at a later date. So, considering these funds when talking about a short fall in revenue to support things like education, defense, infrastructure, and other social services is, well, misleading. The real operations of this country are funded by income tax, corporate tax, and excise taxes, and luxury taxes. However, we are talking about raising individual taxes so I don't know why you would throw in corporate or excise taxes into the mix unless you wanted to muddy the water.

And, it is absolutely false that only people making $103,000 pay payroll taxes. Everyone pays payroll taxes up to the first $103,000. That means me, that would presumably mean you, and it definitely means Warren Buffet. However, Warren Buffet won't recieve any more social security or medical benefits than any other person making $103K. In fact he will recieve proportionally less than someone making $50K. Now, you may have an argument that "poor" people pay more as a percentage. However, considering the fact that any one fitting that description doesn't pay any income tax and the money they do pay in go towards programs that are targeted to benefit them the most, I still say they need to chip in on the income tax front.

realamericansfirst: The FACT is that poor people pay a BIGGER percentage of their income in taxes than the rich do in this country. And that's wrong

THANK YOU

I don't buy the argument that businesses aren't hiring because of possible changes coming in the future. None of them have any qualms about letting people go when it becomes 'fashionable'. Quite often we hear about a company who is laying off 10,000 or more workers and nobody bats an eye. So not hiring somebody because they don't know the future is not a valid excuse.

As far as the rich doing the hiring, most aren't in a position to hire anyone, unless it's an illegal to do their gardening, clean their homes or nanny their kids. So that argument doesn't wash either. My take on it is that they REALLY want Pres. Obama to fail and they will hold out till some else becomes president. I doubt it even matters to them what party he/she's from as long as it's not a 'black guy'.

Depends PM NYC,

If by "Rich" you are referring to Warren Buffet or the hoardes of stock brokers on wall street pulling down over $1 million a year as Capital gains; then, yes. If you are talking about a husband and wife with no children pulling down $250-350,000 through two jobs, then you're out of your mind. Unfortunately, a majority of those people who will see their taxes rise due to raising taxes for the "Super Rich" fall into the category of the husband and wife pulling $250-350,000. Should they pay more, I say yes. However, don't try and tell me that the "poor" pay more of their income than the Husband and Wife tandem. It just doesn't add up when you consider the poor are only paying payroll and some luxury taxes. And, lest you try the state tax and sales tax arguments, the same still holds true but shouldn't be a part of arguments around Federal taxes.

The wealthy sitting on money care nothing for this nation any more - just profits. They can get them overseas, so they don't care about the USA any more. They work people harder and pay them less.... and they can't remember how many houses they own or where they are located.....

We have returned to pre-capitalist America of the late 1800's. Super-rich owners of property and business, everyone else working and working two jobs and making less. I still say we should eliminate all deductions, and offer only deductions for businesses who employ more people for 2 years or more....very generous ones. We need to encourage job creation here in the USA, and charge tariffs for all products that come in the door over 50% complete.

Many of the wealthy no longer care about regular people....and there is no longer a strong ethic of social responsibility or belonging to this community. Buffet is rare - but I'd like to know -

• How many jobs have Microsoft, Nike, GE, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Apple, Dell, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Boeing outsourced in the past 20 years?
• What percentage of WalMart products are made overseas?
• How many Call Centers for high tech companies moved offshore?
• totals please?????

http://www.vosizneias.com/61261/2010/08/01/washington-us-jobs-moving-offshore-at-record-pace/

Washington - Jobs are fleeing the US for lower-cost countries at an alarmingly higher rate.

Information technology, finance, back-office staffing, call-center and manufacturing firms are setting up shop abroad amidst a record trade deficit, soaring unemployment—and a protectionist movement at home led by New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, The Post has learned.

The US shed some 5.38 million manufacturing jobs alone between 2000 and 2009—2.4 million attributed directly to our trade deficit with China—Commerce Department data shows. New York state has been hard hit, losing 272,000 jobs in the same period.

The job-loss forecasts are frightful: Over 1 million back-office jobs will be lost to offshoring—jobs created by US firms abroad instead of here at home—between 2000 and 2015, according to The Hackett Group, a global strategic advisory firm. About 100,000 back-office jobs move out of the US each year, double the 2004-2005 level, the company says.

5-6 million jobs sent overseas 2000-2010. The wealthy are not sitting on their money. They are sending it overseas.

And we wonder about why there is so much unemplyment in this country???????

Watcher, they are hunkered down because there is no demand for their products and services, not because they are afraid of regulations that don't even exist yet. It's a nice argument to make if you are simply trying to make Obama sound like the bad man, but the argument is silly.

Luxury spending is at a high right now...they are not creating jobs because they don't need to to enjoy the fruits of their non-labor. This whole myth of the "job creator" is an evil joke. Innovation and hard work create jobs by creating demand, not Richie Rich investing in the stock market to scoop off easy profits from the volatility. Warren Buffet is an American hero and honest. He knows where his bread gets buttered.

Dee Too,

Good focus on eliminating dedcutions. However... if we put a tarrif on every product coming into this country over 50% complete, that will just raise inflation. But, that's not all. Every sensible country in the WTO will match that tarrif (if not apply an outright ban on American products) creating a net zero affect; except for the higher cost of living part.

Tonelover,

I'd say regulations play a small part of it. However, it really has to do with the uncertainty of the economy. And, I really don't think it has anything to do with making Obama look good or bad. It's the reality of long term and strategic planning in the current economy.

It seems that if there is ANYTHING that Progressives and the Tea Party (that part that isn't just ultra-rich and shamelessly attaching itself to a supposedly grass-roots movement) can agree upon -- it is the need to eliminate all the past and future so-called "free-trade" initiatives, and BRING U.S. JOBS HOME. Let's form a Left-Right coalition to reinstate tariffs on imports and create a new localism, which can reestablish the strength of the American economy (especially the crucial aspect of manufacturing) -- and which BTW will benefit the entire world by making everyone more self-reliant economically.

Watcher, we have heard your line before. Remember when there was a question if Obama would extend the tax cuts for all and not just the middle class? We were told Biz was holding off spending because they didn't know. Well, it was finally settled. Did they start spending? No. Then we were told they were holding off due to the health care "unknown"... well THAT was settled.. Did they start spending? NO. As Buffet said, the rich will never NOT invest due to a tax debt. They are too money hungry to do that....

Zoroaster, the solution then would be SIMPLE -- if you don't want to pay extra expense (actually the real cost of importing goods), then BUY AMERICAN! Tariffs would have no effect on the cost of American-made goods.

Uh, Demlefty, the reason most Americans don't buy American products is that they cost more. So, if all the cheap products at walmart and target were no longer available, you would have to pay more for the domestic products. Hence, your cost of living just went up. Would be nice if that weren't the case, however, with the Dollar as a reserve currency and our expectations of quality of life as it is, if you were to only buy products made in America, your cost of living would rise substantially.

It's amazing how consistently hypocritical the ultra right is. They want smaller Government--reduce/eliminate regulatory agencies, reduce/eliminate welfare, reduce/eliminate unemployment, etc. Then, they state that the government should insure that only the truly deserving get the benefits (their attempt at displaying some compassion), especially their SS and Medicare checks. But, how do you ensure that the truly deserving get the needed benefits if you eliminate the regulatory agencies???? Perhaps, we'll hire Houdini, and fire everyone else.

The other argument is that smaller Government will reduce meddlesome regulations and un-needed Government agencies, thereby increasing jobs creation. If we follow this philosophy, the unemployment rate will triple overnight--hundreds of thousands Government workers will be out of jobs. Not only that, the first ones that will complain for lack of services--fire, police, judicial, infrastructure maintenance, garbage collection, etc., are the ultra right. It seems, it's within their nature to always complain about something. With these people it's "Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't!" They made several movies about this type of mentality, they're titled, "Grumpy Old Men."

Zoroaster, perhaps consumers would pay more for American-made goods, but two factors you don't mention are:

Consumers will receive goods that are higher quality and last longer.

The repatriation of American jobs, when corporations take the hint and return manufacturing jobs to this country will result in higher wages for millions of Americans, allowing them to pay the slightly higher cost of superior workmanship, and having more left over.

The free-market system is built around forcing those on lowest rung on the ladder (working blokes) to fight it out for the lowest-wage jobs they (corporate bosses) will allow. Fair trade will provide increased power to those of us who are the workers, to have more power and control over our jobs and lives. Another term for this is "democracy" -- and shouldn't that be the bottom line?

IF tax breaks for the rich create jobs; where ar they?

Overseas. After all, that's one of the incentives corporations enjoy, a tax break for outsourcing.

To be fair, though, the problem is less personal income tax (not that it should not be fair for ALL), and more corporate tax loopholes, incentives, and subsidies.

Demlefty,

Sounds great. However, previous experiments into shutting ourselves out of the global economy (termed isolationism) have ended in nothing less than tragedy. I'm not one to say that those attempts didn't fail because of execution as opposed to the idea itself being bad. However, history is betting against you.

The third richest man in the world says "Take my money, please!"

Buffett is a rare case among the super rich. He pretty much lives a middle class life because if it's good enough for most of the country, it's good enough for him. He doesn't believe in extravegance that amounts to rubbing other peoples noses in it.

Bill Gates lives a somewhat more lavish life, but doesn't really take it to excess. Gates is very much on the same page as Buffett regarding taxes. You can call these guys stupid for their attitudes, but if they were stupid, they wouldn't be that rich.

I am encouraged looking at the results of this question. Almost 95% think taxes for the rich need to rise. People are slowly beginning to see the light and see through the BS that is circulated trying to defend their low tax rates. Bottom line is that as the Republicans double down on the "no tax increases" strategy, while very clearly rejecting even modest increases for the richest people, they are only digging themselves in a deeper hole. Seems to me that if you are running for office and 95% of the public agrees with your position on this very important issue that is rigidly tied to the economy, I don't see how you can lose.

As more people begin to understand the ridiculous abuses of tax policy by the wealthy and the repeated defense of that by Republicans, just maybe the masses will demand the change that needs to happen. In the 1950's when the middle class in America was actually created, the top tax rates for the wealthy were at 90%. Those rates didn't drive us into a depression, they drove us into unprecedented growth and built the country's then modern, leading edge, infrastructure that is now crumbling around us and is far behind what many other civilized countries now have.

The defense of the low taxes for the wealthiest Americans is pure BS. If it were true, after the policies of the last ten years we would be all living very comfortably with no unemployment. We would be begging people South of the border to come here to help fill the labor shortage!

As more people become unemployed and unfortunately have "free time" on their hands, they are educating themselves to the real truth, that before they simply just accepted what they were told because they didn't really have time to check, nor did they really care about how or why it worked. Reality is setting in and almost all the unemployed know it up close and personal. Finally, people are starting to wake up to the way we have been conned and robbed over the last decade.

yup, the class warfare is working, careful what you ask for, once you get it, you may wish you hadn't.

Your right mygirl, it's coming down to the robber baron days again. If it comes to that it comes to that and it'll be dealt with as it was the last time round.

The war is actually over and we know what side won. The bit of crumbs in righting this balance is what Buffet is talking about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7929657/The-dinner-that-cost-Bill-Gates-Warren-Buffett-and-other-celebrities-billions.html

The question any voter (who's NOT a millionaire or Billionaire) should ask themselves is: "Who are the politicians SUPPORTING the idea of not raising taxes on the rich?" "Who are these politicians protecting and WHY?" "Why have they been telling us FOR YEARS that TAX CUTS promote JOB GROWTH when we all know that that isn't happening?"

The lies will continue as long as WE allow them to continue.

Despite the comments to the contrary, the Watcher (2nd post above) is absolutely correct. I am an executive with a large company and it is clear to us that businesses will not start to thrive again until the administration creates some certainty for them. With respect to one of the primary raw materials my company purchases, we would definately purchase more if more were available, so yes, there is certainly demand without supply. Personally, I'd like to purchase a new Nikon, but guess what, every store, including the online stores are out of stock. So there again, more demand than supply. With all of the uncertainty businesses cannot affort to borrow money and hire people to expand without some certainty that we won't go into another recession in the next few months.

All of you are so quick to accuse someone of lying, but then what is the truth? If you know someone is lying, then you must also know the truth, right? So Where's Waldo, for example, what do we need to do to promote job growth? Do you suggest that the gov't increase taxes so that all of the unemployed can become permanent government employees?

The problem is that most people don't really understand what is going on in the world or what the politicians that represent them are really doing for them, or not. For example, take the law sponsered by Dick Durbin of Illinois that set maximum transaction fees that banks can collect for debit card transactions, did that really help consumers??? No, it did not because they are losing revenue, many banks are now charging fees just to have a debit card and Visa and Mastercard are expected to add fees as well. So this just hurt the consumer, but it gave Durbin a few good sound bites.

To Don,

Your an imbecile. the Disabled and SS recipients don't pay taxes on their measly checks. THEY SURE AS HELL DO!!! My mom makes nothing, but still pays a modified amount.

Look something up before you pull a false fallacy out of your ASS.

Try looking up the term, you may, but I doubt it, become a more accurate poster in the future!!!

mygirl1.......

You're statement about tax on home sales is a distortion of the facts. It will not apply to 99% of home sales. Please stop conveying half truths in an attempt to make a point. Honesty is much better.

Yeah, Bob. Apparently, the 3.5% tax only applies on profit from selling a home. A single person selling a home needs to pay 3.5% on any profit over $250,000. A couple needs to pay 3.5% on any profit over $500,000. What's the median home price; something like $150,000? I don't think too many people are worried about raking in more than $250,000 in profit from selling their home these days.

Orcaspapa is exactly right. The reason no jobs have been created is because the wealthy actually won't create jobs unless there is demand for a product or service they intend to provide, using the prospective workers. No demand = no jobs. No jobs = no paychecks. No paychecks = no demand. That series of simple equation shows the fallacy of supply side economics. No matter how much cash is dumped on 'job creators', no jobs get created unless there is demand for the product or service. Right now, the wealthy and large corporation are sitting on mountains of cash they don't know what to do with except pay exorbitant salaries and bonuses to each other. The government now has to step in and make the money MOVE through taxation of those who can easily afford it and start using that money to actually create jobs, paychecks, and DEMAND. Everything else beside this is irrelevant and mere ininformed talking points. Even a government job creates demand. Let's somebody start hiring, even if it is the government. Those workers then pay taxes, buy stuff, create demand, and the economy takes off. Tax cuts and loopholes do nothing.

So everyone agreed that everyone should pay taxes. There are those that argues the super rich shouldn't have to pay any more taxes then they currently do because the poor/unemployed don't pay any taxes at all. Now lets just take a closer look at that. How would a poor person pay any taxes at all? If I make less than 10k a year those that advocates fairness think I should pay taxes which would leave me with virtually nothing left to pay my rent and purchase a monthly bus ticket so I can go to work at a pathetic job in my pathetic life.

Where has all the humility gone to? Do you really think a rich person will struggle to pay his mortgage on his mansion, his maids, driver, his jet, or his collections of exotic cars? If he has to pay a little more in taxes on his capital gains? America is built on a foundation of "E Pluribus Unum" which means everyone has pitch in a time of need, from the poor to the rich. You might ask, how does a poor pitch in? They pitch in by dying for this country, if that's not enough to put on the line as your life than I don't know what is consider paramount. Rich people don't die for this country, just in case you want to know. They may serve in the military, but as officer of a rich family, they won't ever be close to the firefight let alone in that country. I know this because being a career military, I've seen so many poor kids join so they can have a chance at that Americans dreams, a path that goes through the military on to a GI Bill so they too can go to college. Through all this time, I've only known one person with a million dollar in her bank account and is enlisted, she did it because she needed to get her citizenship.

An excerpt of what Warren Buffett recently wrote to the New York Times:

"And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."

www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&seid=auto

I thought return on investment happened because the investor was willing to assume some risk.

Silly me. I guess corporations in this country all run on the principle of "I'm too big to fail, so you have to give me "certainty" before I give anything back."

And who defines "certainty" - this constant "we're not there yet" yanking the football away is ridiculous.

first i think everyone needs to seperate corp. tax and income tax. if a person's income is very high say he or she is a ceo making $1,000,000 dollars a year he or she is going to pay more in income tax then a person making $60,000 a year. next corperation tax should stay the same but all the loop holes should be eliminated. next goverment i could be cut way back. look at the welfare system, i live in a high poverty area, now most people who collect welfare don't need it they could get a job but because the get goverment money why would they. second social security needs to be cut back it should be for war vets and people over 65 and in some select cases people with injuries that prevents them from working. i know of a person who gets $900 a month because this person is severly over weight thats B.S.

in closing yes the rich are rich and we envy them and want them to be are problem. but lets look and our socialistic programs and cut and save money before we raise taxes on people who have become succesful and make lots of money and create many jobs.

How about we get rid of all tax deductions for the rich except one. You get a deduction for every person you directly employ. You get more for long term employees and benefits. Corporations would be the same.

Well, the tea party must make up the 5,300 votes.

You can always count on them to vote against all of our best interests.

I see them as traitors trying to destroy our government for no other reason than corporations telling them to. (Fox News, Limbaugh etc)

@Think for one second...

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and think that the country can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Why insist on cutting programs that help people BEFORE we raise taxes? And, why only raise the taxes of corporations? The wealthy are wealthy in large part because they have bought tax exemptions and loopholes for themselves. They do NOT create jobs unless there is demand for whatever product or service they plan on making and selling, except of course the jobs they create in response to their own PERSONAL demands (someone to provide sex, wash his limo, clean his pool, cook his food, or swab the deck of his yacht). The reason there is no demand is because of the scary employment situation. At times like this, the govt. has to step in and make the bankrolls start circulating again by taxing it and spending it on infrastructure and jobs programs. That creates paychecks, employment security, and DEMAND. Only then will the economy take off. Money has to be put in motion. If it isn't, the economy is dead. Only the govt. can make that happen. Spending cuts do nothing.

Also @Think for one second...

I don't think Warren Buffet envies the rich, and I'd say he wants the rich to be part of the solution by paying a fair share of tax revenue, NOT part of the problem.

The defense budget grew from $316 billion in 2001 to $708 billion in 2011. Federal spending on homeland security, which includes everything from airport security to border control, also rose dramatically. Last year dozens of federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, spent $70 billion on such programs, according to the Office of Management and Budget. That's up from $37 billion in 2003, the first year after DHS was formed.

All that spending was reflected in the soaring performance of the defense industry, led by the top five defense contractors: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon.

In 2001, revenues for U.S.-based defense contractors totaled $217 billion, according to data compiled by the analytics firm Capital IQ. By 2010 revenues had grown to $386 billion. Profits grew more than twice as fast over the same time period, from $6.7 billion to $24.8 billion. Contractors based abroad, such as BAE Systems, also flourished. BAE was the sixth biggest defense contractor in 2010, with $7.2 billion in U.S. military contracts.

And the Tea Party thinks this country is broke because of unemployment benefits and food stamps? Give me a break.

when a lobbyist like Grover Norquist can get 6 republicans too sign a pledge not too create new revenue streams then I think we know where the problems lye. Don't we? Lobbyist for corporations in the white house are stealing our leaders services. Theft of Service is a punishable offense. Why aren't Grover and the 6 Republicans that signed the pledge not sitting in a jail cell awaiting arraignment on Sedition charges. Seems the foundations are there to effect arrest. You should contact you congressman and ask them why....

Lobbyists for the rich and big business is no different than Unions are for the daily workers. Remove all lobbyists from the Congressmen' s pockets.

Bob, MyGirl and Zoroaster,

I've seen the email about the house sale taxes. Very cleverly crafted, and it in fact is technically correct as it is written, but like a lot of these, it doesn't tell the whole story. It leaves all the important things out that Zoroaster correctly states. Personally, I see half truths like this as lies, but I suppose that technically they aren't. But they sure are trying to be deceptive.

It was just typical of many right wing propaganda emails. Most of the intended victims read it and accept it. They may sometimes google it and find a hundred right wing websites where it's posted. So it must be true, right?

Seems to me if I was going to create an email talking about how bad a bill was I'd also include a link to the actual bill text. However that wouldn't work too well in this case or most other similar cases because they need to misrepresent the truth to make their point. If someone were to read the actual text, they realize they were being conned.

I've got myself on some right wing distribution lists and also get a lot from some of my Tea Bagger aquaintances. I've tracked many of these with some little known tricks and can assure you that these don't get started by somebody's uncle Joe who stumbled onto it. These are very well crafted items distributed by paid propaganda machines. After awhile, they get pretty easy to spot. Include some pictures in the email and it's a pretty easy breadcrumb trail to follow.

But the point is that if you believe any of this stuff without doing your own checking at unimpeachable sources like the actual text of a bill, you just aren't very smart. The fact is though that these don't get circulated to convince people like me, they are designed to mainly go after people who are already looking for an excuse to blame the other side. Ones like this one are also intended to scare old people who lack the computer skills to do a thorough check out.

Tony1974,

That kind of spin is weak and doesn't belong in a intelligent conversation. Unfortunately, there are too many intellectually challenged people who buy your argument at face value. The only arguments I have seen are that the rich should be taxed higher; in addition, there are 48% of wage earners who do not pay income tax and it would not be fair to focus only on the "rich" and not ask some of these people to chip in. You're trying to portray all 48% as poor and unemployed. It's a similar tactic as Obama trying to portray ever couple making over $250,000 as private jet owners. First off, if they are unemployed then they don't earn wages and they aren't included in the 48%. Additionally, not all 48% are capable of paying taxes while continuing to survive on the wages they make. Historically, the percentage of people who can't afford to pay taxes has been around 27% (which also happens to be the percentage that didn't pay taxes prior to the Bush Tax Cuts). With the weakened economy, I would assume that the percentage has risen although I haven't researched any firm numbers on that. However, I doubt that number is over 30%. Having said that, the argument is that there should be equal focus on the remaining 18% of lower income earners putting something in. That isn't to say they need to pay a proportional share as those in the upper middle class (and definitely not proportional to those making over $250,000). However, they should pay something, even if it is a token contribution.

jeffrey f

Here is what you said to me:

"To Don,

Your an imbecile. the Disabled and SS recipients don't pay taxes on their measly checks. THEY SURE AS HELL DO!!! My mom makes nothing, but still pays a modified amount.

Look something up before you pull a false fallacy out of your ASS.

Try looking up the term, you may, but I doubt it, become a more accurate poster in the future!!!"

That was a response to my post:

"Here's a partial list of people who pay no income tax:

• Retired with SS as their only income
• Working poor with families
• Disabled
• Students
• Unemployed
• Homeless
• Corporations and high income earners with lots of deductions

It would be nice if some of you would start thinking more about those who CAN pay taxes rather than those who CAN'T. If there are people who should pay taxes and don't we should correct that problem, but the real problem is that the rich are paying the lowest tax rates in at least six decades and people like you are sticking up for them. Why? Maybe the folks who have lots of income and lots of loopholes should be the ones to get our attention"

Perhaps you should stop and think before you call anyone else an imbecile, and you should certainly learn the difference between "your" and "you're" if you are trying to demonstrate superior intelligence.

My "list" was intended to encourage zero to think about those who don't pay taxes. I want those who worry so much about those who don't pay taxes to understand that most of those people are poor, even destitute, and that we should focus our efforts on making sure that the people who can pay do pay.

Obviously, not every disabled person is on the "not paying income taxes" list. Some disabled people have a very nice income. Some pay taxes and some don't. Not all students are on the list. Many work and pay taxes. Some do not. For that matter, many of the unemployed pay some taxes. My point, which I think is fairly obvious, is that many people who don't pay taxes do not have sufficient income to pay taxes.

But you are so focused on nit-picking the statements of others that you haven't taken time to think about or that you fail to understand that you miss a very obvious point that I was making, and then have the audacity to call me an imbecile.

Don,

I agree with your post to Jeffrey, however, your use of the nickmanme zero isn't much more in terms of maturity. Perhaps it is you who needs to think more about what kind of people represent that 48% of people not paying income tax. Homeless? Seriously, you think a large contingent of homeless have jobs? Corporations? We are talking about wage earners. How many Corporations get a W-2? UnEmployed, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think they are paying taxes on a wage so therefore they shouldn't be in that list; however, that point I'm not sure of. Regardless, it is easy to pull out the bleeding heart and scream with indignity that people would focus on why these people don't pay taxes. However, if you look at the reality that we are a nation where everyone capable needs to pull their share, then your basically focusing in on the rich while ignoring the 18% of those people who should be able to contribute but don't. It's not Rich vs. Poor in my mind, it's those who can and do verses those who can and don't. Again, the Rich still need to contribute more, however, lets not let that 18% hang out in the shadows complaining about how the Rich don't contribute enough taxes.

Sorry ..... just shortened the screen name. No intent to insult you.

By the way, many homeless really do have jobs. They live in their cars or in shelters, they perform day labor, etc. Many unemployed have not been employed all year, they are just unemployed now and their period of unemployment lowers their annual income below the level at which they pay taxes. But thanks for picking my nits.

I think that's a fair statement Don. I just wanted to reiterate that I am not saying that the "rich" shouldn't contribute more. I just don't want people to lose sight of the fact that several families who have the ability to pay taxes aren't and should be included in the scrutiny. I also agree that a majority of the 48% of wage earners who didn't pay taxes don't have the resources to pay taxes. I'm just saying those that don't, but can, should. Also lost in the debate are the stock brokers claiming their income as capital gains at a 15% tax rate. One news source quoted a broker who was boasting that he made $350,000 last year and only paid $6,000 in taxes; I don't think he is a rare case. Now, consider some of the upper echelon brokers pulling down over a million a year.

To all the little nay-sayers giving me grief about the 3.8% obamacare tax on home sales...

Beginning January 1, 2013 Obamacare imposes a 3.8% medicare tax on 'unearned' income of 'high income' taxpayers which would apply to sales of single family homes, duplexes, townhouses, co-ops and rental income. The ''high-income' thresholds are not indexed for inflation which will mean that it will reach increasing numbers of middle-class taxpayers over time. Then you have commercial properties.

Don, I'm very happy that you and Zoroaster are now pals. It, however, doesn't mitigate your constant reference too false fallacy. If your going to quote percentages or dollars you need credible sources of information, hearsay doesn't hold the acid test. Sorry I called you an Imbecile, but, it's frustrating when others pull tor he discussion off topic with politics or the dreaded False fallacy. If you just round up, round down or generalize it makes you look like your taking short cuts or just not doing the leg work. If you stump from knowledge you'll be light years ahead of the pack....

jeffrey

I quoted no percentages or dollars. Mine was a general statement based on common knowledge concerning the inability of many wage earners to pay income tax. I also stated that those who pay very little or no tax because of unreasonable deductions should be made to pay more taxes.

I had no intention of writing a term paper for your reading pleasure. When I say that unemployed people, or students, or retired people living on social security have low incomes I do not believe that I need to give you a reference to prove that statement. Why not concentrate on improving your grammar skills and quit nit picking my statements. I repeat, I quoted no percentages and no dollar amounts and references are unnecessary for the statements I made.

And, not to beat a dead horse, but when you say, "If your going to quote percentages or dollars" you need to say you're (which is a contraction for "you are"). Your is a possessive pronoun. In addition, false fallacy is redundant, since "fallacy" already indicates that you are suggesting that something is untrue.

For a businessman Mark, you apparently forgot your spell check. As far as I'm concerned, you're just a hack for the Republican far right ideologues.

I'm not the only one in the country who can see through the lies. Your 'love fest' for the "Trap-Door" politics of the Tea Party Cement heads is more than apparent. You and your ilk are nothing more than a broken record and you idiots can't even see that fact because you are nothing but a bunch of blind followers for the very people who would cut your throats in a heartbeat.

Zoroaster,

I did not intend to put a spin on what I commented on. I'm just merely stating the obvious from an ordinary low income's person's life, such as myself at one point in my life. Granted you're right about certain people don't pay taxes, but that's just the poor. I myself, paid over 3k last year in taxes, truthfully I really needed the money for bills and other necessities. Although I'm sure Mr. Buffet is not going to miss his 6 millions. Remember the word of JFK, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

By the way you're right about those intellectually challenge, they’re all flocking to the Tea Party and have no idea that GOP is just waiting to take what we all work all our lives to pay for, Social Security and Medicare.

Well sad thank you

Well said. Any corporation that sends jobs overseas should be taxed extra. I'd be all for giving them (somewhat) of a break if they bring those jobs back AND provide decent living wages and benefits.

When Americans do not have jobs, or good paying jobs, we cannot buy products and services. It's a never ending destructive cycle and it won't end until the corporations bring the jobs back where they belong!

If we just instituted a 30% tax on the cost of American corporations' overseas call centers we'd see a whole lot of American jobs in no time.

And, as a bonus, we'd get to talk to customer service reps who speak English!

I'm hoping that you are putting General Electric and General Motors at the top of the docket.

When the UAW buys or starts a car company (as opposed to us giving them stock), they can end unemployment as we know it, I'm sure. Leftists believe that there is nothing difficult about running a business for profit, but please tell me which large mining companies were started by the miners.

Many pension funds own stock in the corporations you will be disintegrating. How will you take care of the teachers, firefighters, and all the other vulnerable groups that the Left likes to trot out, when their pensions dissolve along with the evil corporations that rape us daily?

Oh yeah like Obama is for jobs here in the USA too;

Senate Democrats lashed out at the Obama administration on Wednesday, saying its stimulus wind energy program creates jobs overseas instead of in the U.S., and they're calling for the administration to put a stop to it.

"Today, we are demanding the Obama administration suspend this program immediately," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The program has already spent $2 billion, funding enough projects to power 2.4 million homes. Any wind farm created in the U.S. is eligible for stimulus money to put up wind turbines, regardless of where those massive structures are made. Each turbine costs about $3 million, and reaches 40 stories into the sky.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/obama-stimulus-money-spent-overseas/story?id=10002592

yes, shut down apple... I cant stand them and their made in china stuff with designed in the USA sticker over it...

End the loopholes for corporations and raise the tax rate to 35%. Corporations who outsource to other countries 50%. Stop "The Giant Sucking Sound" as Ross Perot brilliantly said. Tax the richest at 36%, the same as the average worker. Get rid of the Tea Nuts in congress, and most of the current crop of the GOP. They tell you "these economist don't know what their talking about, they're a bunch of liberals" "Teachers don't deserve union benefits (but police and firemen who vote republican do) because they're liberals". "Climate scientists are lying to making a fortune off of climate change (even though they would still have a job no matter what their outcomes were, and there aren't many rich scientist), they're a bunch of liberals"

See a pattern here? Anyone with intellect; economist, teachers, scientist, etc. must be liberals, because nobody with a brain would be a Teabagger or a member of the GOP. This is the only argument the Teabaggers have gotten right, and they did so by accident.

If we just instituted a 30% tax on the cost of American corporations' overseas call centers we'd see a whole lot of American jobs in no time.

Actually, many corporations are already being burned by overseas call centers. As the standard of living rises in countries like India, employees' salaries are increasing, and corporations that outsourced call jobs from the US are now having to pay MORE. And I say, serves them right.

"IF tax breaks for the rich create jobs; where ar they?"

In India and China. These American Success Stories have such fine character that they don't want to pay one of the "little people" more than a dollar an hour.

Great article on the subject of taxes from Willamette Week in Portland, OR:

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

Good article RAF! I knew most of that already but some of the other stuff was a revelation. Especially the part about Bush having the IRS report on the top 400's tax rate marked as a state secret for 7 of his 8 years.

good article, to bad the ones who bought the supply side thing don't like it when you present them with facts... they prefer their own fairy tales

The way I see it is this....if the Corporate pigs are going to sit on cash and hire overseas (or not at all) because of the moving goalposts of 'uncertainty'....

then I will respond to MY UNCERTAINTY as an American worker and stop buying any product that isnt a necessity. No vacations, no eating out, no non-essentials. Good luck, Corporate America. Your demand wont be getting any better. Sorry, but its the UNCERTAINTY talking.

The Consumers' spending is the key. You wont sacrifice? Then we DONT BUY!!

You're right, they're not paying their fair share. They're paying MORE than their share, while the bottom 40% of earners are paying virtually nothing in income taxes.

Because of the lack of jobs created, they have no income..But they pay sales tax, gas tax, and other taxes..

Yashmak - who would you rather be, the top earner making over 1 million and paying somewhere around or below 35% tax rate.

Or make less than $20,000 a year and pay no taxes.

You tell me who's getting screwed.

Absolutely, Brad. Some conveniently forget that income tax is only one piece of the tax structure. How convenient to penalize folks with NO income because they pay NO income tax.

BTW - how long do you suppose we could save Social Security if SSI tax was imposed on ALL earned income instead of only the first $100+K?

Yashmak, are you rich? Have you ever talked to someone rich about taxes? Most will say that they pay too little and that their effective tax rate is low or near zero. The tax rate for the rich has varied all over the map in our history, so how can you say they pay too much or too little?

The fact is that they have enjoyed lower rates and huge tax breaks for many years and can easily absorb a small bump in taxes to help our country's debt issue. It really IS that simple. This is not rocket science.

Walla Walla,

Exactly..The cap kicks in at $103,000..Why shouldn't they pay the fair % of their income, just like those that make less than $103,000? Why should they pay less? And have the ability for more tax write-offs?

When you consider ALL of the taxes we all pay, the poor pay a far greater share of their income than the wealthy.

40% of federal tax revenues now come from PAYROLL taxes (SS/Medicare). NONE of that is paid by the investor class, as capital gains, other "unearned income" and income over $103k is EXEMPT.

Income tax revenues now bring in only 42%, and corporate taxes are down to 9% (!).

Yeah, there's something wrong with our tax structure, duncancl. Fix it, and then we'll see what cuts the bottom 90% should absorb. The top 2% should be willing to "share the pain", but so far they're just stealing the gain.

"The fact is that they have enjoyed lower rates and huge tax breaks for many years and can easily absorb a small bump in taxes to help our country's debt issue. It really IS that simple. This is not rocket science."

And yet, if you took 100% of the income of the top 5% of earners in taxes, it wouldn't even close the deficit, let alone touch the debt we've already accumulated. Historical precedent also shows that raising the taxes on this portion of our population rarely yields a real increase in overall income tax revenues collected by the federal government, and has in some cases resulted in LOWER income tax revenues collected from this segment of society, as significant numbers of them respond by taking their money and businesses overseas.

If they hold 80% of the wealth then they should pay 80% of the taxes.

Quick, Yashmak, which countries in the world have the most prosperous average citizens?

Try Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Singapore, Netherlands and Hong Kong.

See any of your "low-tax, small government" Shangri-la's on that list?

And, in response to your misconception:

Here's a great chart showing how simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire next year could stabilize our deficit problem for the next 10 years: A Simple Step to Stabilize the Fiscal Outlook

And a great article on the deficit from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Corporate profits have recovered, but job market still depressed

We have choices, too, you know.

We can choose to continue to subsidize corporations, or we can make them support our services like the rest of us do. One or the other, but I know which one I'd pick.

Real -- The bush tax cuts now below to obama, he signed the extension at a time when both the house and senate were under democrat control.

RealAmerican:

In all reality, how would we stop subsidizing companies? Just stop buying anything? You can pick and choose who you want to support and who you don't want to support though some misguided sense of patriotism, but virtually anything you buy will will probably ended up subsidizing at least in a roundabout way, someone you don't like.

Businesses are completely amoral. The behavior of the people who run them is utterly predictable. If you create policies that are harshly punitive to those who choose to 'design in America, but manufacture elsewhere,' their behavior will change. If you create policies that reward them from manufactureing elsewhere, their behavior will stay the same.

But the reality is that the behavior of the consumer has very limited impact on the behavior of corporations because virtually every retail item is nothing but the same thing with a different label. RJ Reynolds, for example, produces, I think 12 different brands of cigarettes in the same factory.

We get it: spend less on stupid stuff, invest in America's future, let the wealthy pitch in more for now since they've reaped all of their benefits due to this country and it's their patriotic duty that most are very willing to do. Reduce waste and corruption. Downgrade lobbyists, make running for office affordable, etc.

Yashmak has put his finger on the newest talking point of the Tea Party: The real problem with the economy isn't multmillionaires and billionaires not paying enough taxes -- the problem is the poor and working class not paying enough! The new theme is: EAT THE POOR!

We should all go read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".

Or just grind up the unemployed for compost. The GREEN way to cut spending!

James, the ONLY reason Obama continued the Bush tax cuts was because the Repubs were threatening to cut off unemployment benefits to thousands of Americans who were out of work and couldn't find jobs! He did it to keep the unemployed from loosing their homes or possibly even starving, NOT because he thought they were good for America!

Just a reminder to everyone..­..

The MAJORITY of all Congressme­n and Senators have made unbelievab­le fortunes throughout these past ten years while our economy goes to hell.

The MAJORITY of all congressme­n and Senators on their five week vacation right now are sipping their cocktails poolside patting each other on the back for scamming us all while building their PERSONAL fortunes thanks to the help of the corporations who own them.

Americans are becoming the laughing stock of the world.

I wholeheartedly agree that Buffett is an honest man - what impresses me more is his fair and level view - and not because I agree with him.

It is very simple, he can start drawing a salary that will be taxed in the 35% bracket instead of getting paid in options, stocks or dividends which only get taxed at 15%. If as he says it is not fair i wonder why he continues to receive his compensation where he only has to pay 15%. Things that make you go HMMMM.

Where are the jobs? The small businesses that provide the bulk of the jobs in this nation are hunkered down and waiting to see what other expensive nonsense is coming down the pike from this entitlement granting administration. An administration that is pandering for votes from our nation's entitlement minded citizenry. Some guy running a small business making 200-500K a year isn't that rich and he's who the Democrats are looking to tax and place unrealistic demands upon in the way of government fiats. Small business is taking a wait and see attitude before they stick there necks out to get hacked off by the stupid politicians pandering for votes.

PJ - because he's no different than every republican that derides entitlement spending, when its their turn to draw medicare or social security...they dont take their own moral high ground, they follow the rules of the road.

Warren Buffett would not be crying a river if that 15% were raised either.

What really needs to happen is 2 different stock markets - one for long term investors, and one for short term. Let the short term folks screw each other over, and let the long term folks enjoy a heck of a lot less volatility.

jri - that is how the super-rich are compensated. Buffet is stating, fairly, that the method of compensation should not dictate the tax rate. I suspect he knows a bit more about his income and tax situation that you and I do.

Walla,

He is being championed for taking some sort of moral high ground. He can demand that they pay him a salary instead taking his entire earnings in options, stocks, and dividends. I love how people like Mr. Buffett champion a cause and rail against an issue but continue to do the very thing they are complaining about. He can most certainly get paid in salary, after all he is the boss.

The Watcher

Where are the jobs? The small businesses that provide the bulk of the jobs in this nation are hunkered down and waiting to see what other expensive nonsense is coming down the pike from this entitlement granting administration.

Pretty lame and unrealistic argument. There are definitely some that are scared... the ones that buy into FOXnews BS, mainly. But there are a far majority that are ready, willing, and able but see absolutely no demand.

Go talk to the music shop that will be closing in a few months (I have)... they have too few clients and could care less about your imaginary taxes or expenses they may have to pay on income they won't have.

We need demand. We need less fear as consumers. We need the GOP pundits to bitch only when they really have a bitch... not at every move anyone makes. All this made up drama and lies are hurting this country and it's time us voters held the GOP responsible for their actions

Perhaps the proverbial poster child for the carried interest loophole is John Paulson. Paulson"s position as a hedge fund manager notably "earned" him $9 billion over the past two years. Tax bill? Zero. Paulson didn't get taxed at the capital gains rate for managing these investments because as long as he didn't cash in the investment, the profits are "carried" until he does cash out:

What the news media missed is that hedge-fund managers don't even pay 15 percent. At least, not currently. So long as they leave their money, known as "carried interest," in the hedge fund, their taxes are deferred. They only pay taxes when they cash out, which could be decades from now for younger managers. How do these hedge-fund managers get money in the meantime? By borrowing against the carried interest, often at absurdly low rates—currently about 2 percent…..

Since borrowed money is not income, that's $9 billion straight to his pocket, tax-deferred as long as he pleases. That's why Paul Ryan's budget eliminates the capital gains tax. Paulson could cash out, pay back the loan in full and walk away with $9 Billion. Tax free. Ryan and the Republicans are looking out for their masters.

There was legislation pending to at least tax these monies as ordinary income rather than capital gains. Last year, there was a bill that contained a provision that did just that, but it was killed in the Senate. President Obama has called for the provision again in his 2012 budget proposal.

They already pay a higher rate than that.

BS

Selfish scumbags.

Example - one person 'upgraded' their boat to yacht size - two times a year - nothing formal - they have a couple business friends on board for a bay cruise. No business comes from this. On taxes - they claim yacht for business use and get the tax break - company pays for refreshments.

What does this mean exactly - if I give a friend a ride thru Jack-in-the-box and we eat lunch in the car - talk about my business week - I can claim my family vehicle for business use on my taxes?

So - I'll bite - how dumb do I sound??

PJ-547553

The goal: pay the least - keep the most

This is how I manage my personal finances as well. Would you care to share your better philosophy?

Gosh Atheismo - you'll pardon me - took me a while to gather my wealth management team....now about that philosophy...wait - am reading what they've printed on the white board they've loaded into my car as we drive thru Jack in the box....Pictures and all so I am able to claim business meeting and write off the car.... PHILOSOPHY...SCREW YOU...I'VE GOT MINE.....AND YOURS...

The rich and the middle class pay all of the taxes people geeze . Why is that so hard for you liberals to understand?

If you do not want poor people ship them out of the country problem solved well except for the Democrats although there not poor ( john kerry nancy and the clintons) they will lose there voting base.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related

Let me put it in a different light. What does the Democratic party offer anyone who does not want to be poor?

Exactly the Demecratic party is the party of poor me lazy left gimme gimme gimme hypocrites.

Right on, Ed. Power to the REAL people!

Come on RealAmericansFirst, didn't you hear: Corporations ARE people! Get in line!

Buffet and Soros would love to see the rich taxed heavier. It helps them keep their competition at bay.

You don't see either of those 2 clowns voluntarily paying more taxes to the federal government becasue they think it's good for the nation.

Hey watcher, have you seen their tax returns?

If so, you must work for Rupert Murdoch.

R.Ammer, Habla ingles por favor?! Yo no entiendo usted.

And that is the problem... it's too easy to ship jobs overseas and products back to the states. Instead of always going on about taxes maybe we need to look at tariffs. Make it so that even if companies go off-shore they still have to pay into the system that supports their consumers. Help level the playing field a bit and you'll see jobs start coming back. I bet you that even a minor terriff would be more than the amount we would get in income taxes.

Right on! But there's a BIG problem, the Party of HELL NO will not allow that to happen, come hell or high water.

Look around Holly, we are already there. How much influence do you really feel you have your Congressional representation? How many campaign promises have they followed through on? Our elections are a farce. People who will tow the party line get nominated and the sheeple try to vote for the least offensive name on the ballot, if they bother to vote at all.

We already live in USA Corp. You just can't afford to buy a share.

"will become" Holly? We're already there, I'm afraid. After all, "Corporations are People too!"

It already is.

So true, only those on the right can't see that. They think "trickle down" is the way to go but there again they just revel in the "golden colored" trickling.

Don't think that way. Its too scary to fathom

You do realize that Obama's ability to be a leader has been undermined and sabotaged at every turn by those who wanted him to fail? Hmm?

In spite of that, Obama has done a lot of good, if you would just open your eyes.

Perry would be the worst thing that could happen - that and Bachmann... Oh lawdy be - the last thing we need is a religious nut job back in the WH.

Perry is Scarey. Wait till you see what they dig up on him. He has done a lot of very questionable things in Texas while he's been in office. He has lots of cronies that he takes care of.

**** TROLL ALERT ***************** Leo the magic one is a first time poster. Don't waste your time responding to the jerk!

Amused. You remind me of the seagulls in Finding Nemo. This country reached its' peak of success while operating under a tax code containing higher rates. We now have the lowest tax rates, across the board, since the late 1950's. I gave part of my body fightning for this country, pay part of every paycheck I receive into taxes to support this country and do not resent either of these things.

If you think folks should pay on a basis of what they want or what they want to use, I suggest a toll booth at the end of your driveway so you can pay before driving on any road.

How do you know that he hasn't sent in extra $$ to the US Treasury? In this article, he's just stating what his tax bill was, not what he actually paid.

Amused skeptic - You know very well, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates both have donated billions for charity. Why should only Buffet just send in money to the treasury, knowing how many other won't do what is right and pay a fair share for the betterment our nation. Have you ever heard those calling for more taxes from the rich, say take everything away from them? A little more isn't going to bankrupt them, would you not agree?

******* TROLL ALERT ******* Amused skeptic is a first time poster just like Leo the magic one. Don't feed! Wish I had checked first.

??Huh? Bush's unfunded tax cuts along with his inability/interest to run the domestic side, as opposed to the war side, have crippled this country.

What is your solution G??

According my pocket-"calculator" , if those tax cuts would work, we would swim in jobs by now.

Not to offend the right but you guys are full of it, and pulled all us in to it. Not cool.

Bush tax cuts went to the rich

Thursday 2 June 2011

From the Economic Policy Institute:

Ten years after their enactment, the Bush tax cuts remain expensive, ineffective, and unfair. As outlined in a new EPI policy memo, the Bush-era tax changes conferred disproportionate benefits to those at the top of the earnings distribution, exacerbating a trend of widening income inequality at a time of already poor wage growth.

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush's tax policies.

If you'd rather see pictures than read, here's the chart:

Over 1/3rd of the Bush Tax Cuts went to the top 1% of earners

The Economic Policy Institute is a far left leaning think tank. Consider this when assessing the above.

So refute the numbers or conclusions if you can instead of attacking the messenger or the source.

just because something comes from a rep. dem tea. lib. cons. doesn't instantly make it wrong when in this country did it become a bad thing to have an open mind; and when did we go from being the country that believed the only thing we had to fear was fear itself, to a nation that is a fraid of its own shadow. When did the rights of the individual which is what this country was founded on; start taking second place to tv preachers, community busy bodies, self-important and self-seeking politicians, what happened to of the people by the people; now its of the rich by the religious fanatics; the rest are getting lost in the fray. The bible tells us to take care of the poor, the widowed, the sick, and the elderly; but these so called christians keep voting for politicians who give taxes breaks the rich and cut programs to help the poor, the the widowed, the sick, and the elderly; can someone explain how this is doing gods work