Tax The Rich Enough To Cover The Deficit.

"History shows how important high taxes on the rich are for creating a strong middle class. If you compare a chart showing the historical top income tax rate over the course of the twentieth century with a chart of income inequality in the United States over roughly the same time period, you’ll see that the period with the highest taxes on the rich - the period between the Roosevelt and Reagan administrations - was also the period with the lowest levels of economic inequality.

You’ll also notice that since marginal tax rates started to plummet during the Reagan years, income inequality has skyrocketed.

Even more striking, during those same 33 years since Reagan took office and started cutting taxes on the rich, income levels for the top 1 percent have ballooned while income levels for everyone else have stayed pretty much flat. Coincidence? I think not.

Creating a middle class is always a choice, and by embracing Reaganomics and cutting taxes on the rich, we decided back in 1980 not to have a middle class within a generation or two. George H.W. Bush saw this, and correctly called it "Voodoo Economics." And we're still in the era of Reaganomics - as President Obama recently pointed out, Reagan was a successful revolutionary.

This, of course, is exactly what conservatives always push for. When wealth is spread more equally among all parts of society, people start to expect more from society and start demanding more rights. That leads to social instability, which is feared and hated by conservatives, even though revolutionaries and liberals like Thomas Jefferson welcome it.

And, as Kirk and Buckley predicted back in the 1950s, this is exactly what happened in the 1960s and '70s when taxes on the rich were at their highest. The Civil Rights movement, the women’s movement, the consumer movement, the anti-war movement, and the environmental movement - social movements that grew out of the wealth and rising expectations of the post-World War II era's middle class - these all terrified conservatives. Which is why ever since they took power in 1980, they've made gutting working people out of the middle class their number one goal.

We now have a choice in this country. We can either continue going down the road to oligarchy, the road we’ve been on since the Reagan years, or we can choose to go on the road to a more pluralistic society with working class people able to make it into the middle class. We can't have both.

And if we want to go down the road to letting working people back into the middle class, it all starts with taxing the rich. The time is long past due for us to roll back the Reagan tax cuts. "

Thom Hartmann
 
We liberals would love to have all kinds of new soak-the-rich taxes to pay for all kinds of free stuff, but we can get by without that.

How about you Republicans do the responsible thing instead and tax the rich enough to cover the deficit?

Or is 'compromise for the good of the country' not in your vocabulary.....

First, you & your’s aren’t “liberals!” Liberals are lovers of the very, very traditional liberal Bill Of Rights. Actually , you & your’s are authoritarian progressive socialist, fascist, neo-communist. There’s nothing y’all would love more than to totally shit-can the Bill Of Rights, especially the 1st, second & 10th amendments.

So, having revealed those truths, how about y’all leftist & rightist read the Constitution, reduce the federal government to the limits of the 10th amendment, respect & deliver on actual free speech, respect gun rights & deliver back to the states their rightful constitutional authority, reduce the federal budget to the size only necessary as determined by the Constitution & thereby eliminate all federal deficits & pay off the national debt & thereby reenact the original American experiment of each state learning good government by the actions of other states, under the confines of the Constitution & thereby liberate our citizens to vote with their feet and move to the state that best fits their particular political, economic & social beliefs & agenda?
 
The rich make the laws, so they'll never get soaked. The working poor pay a higher percentage in taxes than do billionaires, no matter which party controls congress. (Hey fcktard neocons, this is not an invitation for you to shout how fcking ignorant you are by claiming the rich pay more taxes.)
 
First, you & your’s aren’t “liberals!” Liberals are lovers of the very, very traditional liberal Bill Of Rights. Actually , you & your’s are authoritarian progressive socialist, fascist, neo-communist. There’s nothing y’all would love more than to totally shit-can the Bill Of Rights, especially the 1st, second & 10th amendments.

So, having revealed those truths, how about y’all leftist & rightist read the Constitution, reduce the federal government to the limits of the 10th amendment, respect & deliver on actual free speech, respect gun rights & deliver back to the states their rightful constitutional authority, reduce the federal budget to the size only necessary as determined by the Constitution & thereby eliminate all federal deficits & pay off the national debt & thereby reenact the original American experiment of each state learning good government by the actions of other states, under the confines of the Constitution & thereby liberate our citizens to vote with their feet and move to the state that best fits their particular political, economic & social beliefs & agenda?

Do you know what is scary? You actually believe the crazy shit you post. The amendments are protected by the left and the ACLU against the rightys who want to change the country into a plutocracy.
 
The only way we can have a great country is if we tax the rich to pay for it.

This is basic logic.

If we only taxed the rest, then not enough revenue would be generated to have a great country.

We would not be able to pay for our incredible government.

We could forget having extensive safety studies and measures, vast and varied government departments that study everything under the sun and beyond the sun. We wouldn't know as much, and what we don't know would hurt us. We could forget having any kind of meaningful regulation of cut throat industries. We already have enough big capitalist money influencing government and making it effective only in increasing capitalist profits. If we taxed the rich even less, we can look forward to a weaker government, less able to defend against the attacks of big money influence.

The rich would take that extra money and funnel it back into weakening government further.

We either tax the rich more or we give up American greatness.

That's the basic logic at work here.

Mediocre revenue = a mediocre government.

Greater revenue = a greater government and a greater country.

You can't separate government and country. They are inextricably linked.

It is not possible to have a small government and a great country.

The two cannot simultaneously exist.
 
Let's start with the outrageous military budget. We spend more than the next 10 nations combined and have done so for many decades. Ike warned us about the military/industrial complex and the danger it represented to America. He has been proven correct. But the rightys are still wanting even more. They always cry about the depleted military. What crap. It is just an easy way to jack up the debt. Who can argue about making us safer, even though it does not? The truth is if you build it, you will use it. We have been waring and invading since we started as a country. Let's take a break. Let's take care of America and the people.

How can anyone call themselves "conservative" when they call for more spending on what is by far the most expensive military the world has ever seen? The Founding Fathers opposed a standing military, and for good reason.
 
Hello Gonzomin,

This article points out that the tax cuts of Bush and Trump have kept us from ending the deficits. https://www.pressherald.com/2019/08/11/our-view-deficit-would-be-zero-if-not-for-tax-cuts/ .Tax cuts for the wealthy harm our country.

Very interesting article:

"King concludes that there would have been zero deficit in next year’s budget if not for the tax cuts passed under presidents George W. Bush (in 2001 and 2003) and Donald Trump. If tax rates had remained at the level they were in 2000, when the economy was growing at more than 4 percent per year and the federal budget was running a surplus, we would be reducing the national debt during this historically long economic expansion, instead of adding to it."

B,But that's the economy that was HANDED TO W by President Clinton! And he even successfully guided us through the Y2K computer glitch on top of it. The last time we elected a Republican President before Trump, that President took a very healthy growing economy and left office with the economy in a shambles, narrowly escaping another great depression, but still an imploding economy now known as the Great Recession, mother of all recessions since the Great Depression. Let's hope Trump doesn't kick off terrible economic times with his trade war. Trump is a total trade warmonger. And nobody wins a trade war. You hurt one another and he who survives is the winner. Pardon me but I don't want an economy that is the survivor of a hurting contest.

It's true we needed to work on our trade imbalance but the way to do that would be to go to China and say: "look we have this problem and if it hurts us that will also hurt you so let's work on it together and see what we can do." That would be the smart way to go about it.

"If nothing else, this budget should put to rest, once and for all, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves by generating economic activity. They just don’t.

If politicians want to, they can say that the wealthiest Americans have worked hard enough and deserve a break. But no one should ever again be allowed to make the specious claim that giving money away to people at the top will make life better for the middle class."
 
There is nothing in the article which ties the strong economy to the tax cuts. The economy was already strong before the tax cuts.

There is also not a word in the article about the billion dollar deficit, or how much richer the rich got because of the tax cuts.

What a biased article.

The point of the post was to demonstrate that the tax cut benefited all taxpayers, not just the wealthy.
 
Hello Celticguy,

The point of the post was to demonstrate that the tax cut benefited all taxpayers, not just the wealthy.

Sure, crumbs have been tossed but who is eating the cake?

All smiles at Mar A Lago as the President rewards them for their support: "You all just got a lot richer."

Trump's words.
 
Rising extreme wealth inequality is hurting the USA and keeping the whole country from being great.

Trump has made wealth inequality great again.
 
Hello Celticguy,



Sure, crumbs have been tossed but who is eating the cake?

All smiles at Mar A Lago as the President rewards them for their support: "You all just got a lot richer."

Trump's words.

If you paid little to begin with that percentage back will be proportionally less. Not crumbs.
 
We liberals would love to have all kinds of new soak-the-rich taxes to pay for all kinds of free stuff, but we can get by without that.

How about you Republicans do the responsible thing instead and tax the rich enough to cover the deficit?

Or is 'compromise for the good of the country' not in your vocabulary.....

Increasing Tax Rates does not increase tax revenues in the long run.
 
Hello Celticguy,

If you paid little to begin with that percentage back will be proportionally less. Not crumbs.

So the more money you have the bigger your tax break. Got it.

And this rewards the rich more than everyone else.

But greater wealth inequality is not what our economy needs.

That doesn't make America great.

That makes wealth inequality great.

Which - actually hurts America as a whole.
 
Hello Celticguy,



That is an opinion which I disagree with. The rich didn't leave the USA when taxes were 90%.

They stayed and they paid. We built interstates, airports, a power grid and hospitals.

All of those things are falling apart now that we don't tax the rich enough.

And we can't even pay our bills, living on borrowed money.

Pathetic.

This is a red herring. Tax rates went to a top marginal rate of 90% during WWII and stay there until the JFK tax cut reduced it to 70%. We had many years of slowed growth after the war was over the tax cuts gave us some growth in the 1960's but we then saw a return to Jimmy Carters "Malaise" in the 1970. Not until the Reagan tax cut of 1981

The problem is spending and has always been spending ever since the 16th Amendment was passed. Repeal the 16th Amendment and restore economic freedom.
 
Hello Celticguy,



So the more money you have the bigger your tax break. Got it.

And this rewards the rich more than everyone else.

But greater wealth inequality is not what our economy needs.

That doesn't make America great.

That makes wealth inequality great.

Which - actually hurts America as a whole.

No.
The more tax you paid the larger the dollar total.
If you were to pay $100 and had your tax reduced 2% thats $2.
If you were to pay $1,000,000 that 2% is $20,000.
The wealth inequality did not change.
To do otherwise would be to not provide equal protection as required by the constitution.
 
Back
Top