Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

While the poor and middle ****fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to ****fy our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

...

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. 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.

...

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

What do you think?

I can't help it, I keep hoping they'll give me free money :cry:

Edit: This would be my response and I expect Congress would say a similar thing if they were being honest about it.

I don't want anything for free. I do wonder why the richest people get breaks while the poorest don't.

I think the current system is fair. The peasants work from dawn 'til dusk in the turnip fields, giving me, their feudal lord, my 60% cut. In return, I give them sanctuary within my castle walls when barbarians from the North invade our lands.

I think the current system is fair. The peasants work from dawn 'til dusk in the turnip fields, giving me, their feudal lord, my 60% cut. In return, I give them sanctuary within my castle walls when barbarians from the North invade our lands.

Oleg_Huzwog

I have no problem with higher taxes on billionares. No coddling from me.

the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.UniverseIX

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.sonicare

Every 8 years the politicans can get a yes/no vote, and if they get more no's than yes, then you can hold elections for new cannidates to take their spot and they can never run again for office.

The political system is run by the wealthy. Most treasury secretaries and cabinet members were from the big banks. The only branch that has yet to be fully taken over by the wealthy elite is the judicial branch.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="UniverseIX"]the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.UniverseIX

Every 8 years the politicans can get a yes/no vote, and if they get more no's than yes, then you can hold elections for new cannidates to take their spot and they can never run again for office.

Those with higher incomes should be taxed more. They need to give more breaks to the poor so they actually have a chance to survive. Not give all the breaks to the super rich, which just makes the gap between the middle class and the rich even bigger. That ends up with the poor/middle class becoming the same thing. More tax breaks to everyone else, and tax the richer people more.Rattlesnake_8

Those with higher incomes should be taxed more. They need to give more breaks to the poor so they actually have a chance to survive. Not give all the breaks to the super rich, which just makes the gap between the middle class and the rich even bigger. That ends up with the poor/middle class becoming the same thing. More tax breaks to everyone else, and tax the richer people more.Rattlesnake_8

Jesus why are you always such an anarchist, TC? :P

Spending by the rich not only drives employment, but also drives a huge chunk of consumer spending. One choice not to spend can do a lot of damage - such as the owner of Hertz not ordering a new fleet of vehicles due to the current economy.topsemag55

the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.UniverseIX

12 people representing 300,000,000? And with essentially lifetime terms? Yeah, I don't think so.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Spending by the rich not only drives employment, but also drives a huge chunk of consumer spending. One choice not to spend can do a lot of damage - such as the owner of Hertz not ordering a new fleet of vehicles due to the current economy.sonicare

Well at this point, the Bush tax cuts aren't really "stimulating" the economy because they've been in place long enough that consumers have adjusted their work/consumption to accomodate for them. It would take further tax cuts to provide actual stimulus (although likewise, raising them would dampen growth).

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.worlock77

12 people representing 300,000,000? And with essentially lifetime terms? Yeah, I don't think so.

not only that but communication and media technologies have got to the point that state identities aren't as important as they used to be.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="UniverseIX"]the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.UniverseIX

Every 8 years the politicans can get a yes/no vote, and if they get more no's than yes, then you can hold elections for new cannidates to take their spot and they can never run again for office.

[QUOTE="Rattlesnake_8"]Those with higher incomes should be taxed more. They need to give more breaks to the poor so they actually have a chance to survive. Not give all the breaks to the super rich, which just makes the gap between the middle class and the rich even bigger. That ends up with the poor/middle class becoming the same thing. More tax breaks to everyone else, and tax the richer people more.xscrapzx

The problem with a flat tax rate is that a, say, 25% tax rate doesn't hurt the CEO making $20,000,000/year, but it seriously hurts the single mom making $20,000/year.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.UniverseIX

12 people representing 300,000,000? And with essentially lifetime terms? Yeah, I don't think so.

not only that but communication and media technologies have got to the point that state identities aren't as important as they used to be.

Obviously there should be changes to our current system, but the idea of giving a small group of people such power for life is asinine.

They still pay the vast majority of income taxes.

I would rather see loopholes closed and forgien investments taxed heavily before a direct income tax increase on the wealthy. Let them keep the money they earn, at least from US investments.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

12 people representing 300,000,000? And with essentially lifetime terms? Yeah, I don't think so.

worlock77

not only that but communication and media technologies have got to the point that state identities aren't as important as they used to be.

Obviously there should be changes to our current system, but the idea of giving a small group of people such power for life is asinine.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

12 people representing 300,000,000? And with essentially lifetime terms? Yeah, I don't think so.

not only that but communication and media technologies have got to the point that state identities aren't as important as they used to be.

Obviously there should be changes to our current system, but the idea of giving a small group of people such power for life is asinine.

Rather than an effort to "stop coddling the super rich" I wish there was a greater focus on "stop screwing the middle cl@ss"

The middle cl@ss lacks the amount and 'type' of income to really utilize all of the loop-holes, etc.

The middle cl@ss also doesn't have the luxury of NOT paying ANY income taxes like 50% +/- of 'poor' households.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"] representative government doesn't work. it's more than obvious that the politicians we have aren't representing anyone but their own interests. It would be much easier to hold a smaller legislative body accountable for their behavior if there were fewer of them. And they would be more apt to cooperate with one another.

not only that but communication and media technologies have got to the point that state identities aren't as important as they used to be.

Obviously there should be changes to our current system, but the idea of giving a small group of people such power for life is asinine.

They still pay the vast majority of income taxes.

I would rather see loopholes closed and forgien investments taxed heavily before a direct income tax increase on the wealthy. Let them keep the money they earn, at least from US investments.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"] representative government doesn't work. it's more than obvious that the politicians we have aren't representing anyone but their own interests. It would be much easier to hold a smaller legislative body accountable for their behavior if there were fewer of them. And they would be more apt to cooperate with one another.

not only that but communication and media technologies have got to the point that state identities aren't as important as they used to be.

UniverseIX

Obviously there should be changes to our current system, but the idea of giving a small group of people such power for life is asinine.

That may be, but 12 people? 24 year terms? Seriously?

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]Spending by the rich not only drives employment, but also drives a huge chunk of consumer spending. One choice not to spend can do a lot of damage - such as the owner of Hertz not ordering a new fleet of vehicles due to the current economy.chessmaster1989

Well at this point, the Bush tax cuts aren't really "stimulating" the economy because they've been in place long enough that consumers have adjusted their work/consumption to accomodate for them. It would take further tax cuts to provide actual stimulus (although likewise, raising them would dampen growth).

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Obviously there should be changes to our current system, but the idea of giving a small group of people such power for life is asinine.

That may be, but 12 people? 24 year terms? Seriously?

there is too much dead weight in congress. Need to cut the fat. We really need less people involved in the decision making.UniverseIX

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"] there is too much dead weight in congress. Need to cut the fat. We really need less people involved in the decision making.sonicare

That may be, but 12 people? 24 year terms? Seriously?

It is.

as always even the liberals in the USA are still extremely conservative and refuse to let go of old ways.UniverseIX

"Letting go of old ways" should not mean adopting extremely worse ones.

It's better to cut spending, balance the budget, and abolish the income tax.Syk0_k03r

How do you balance the budget AND abolish the income tax? Cut spending to zero?

[QUOTE="Syk0_k03r"]It's better to cut spending, balance the budget, and abolish the income tax.Oleg_Huzwog

How do you balance the budget AND abolish the income tax? Cut spending to zero?

I used statistics provided by the IRS. Also, we are talking about FEDERAL TAXES...not state...these are across the board for all states. You can look at tax rates vs jobless rates, gdp, and other statistics over the course of many years.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="Syk0_k03r"]It's better to cut spending, balance the budget, and abolish the income tax.Syk0_k03r

How do you balance the budget AND abolish the income tax? Cut spending to zero?

Our defense budget alone is like 30% of our total taxes...

Your idea would only work in fantasy land.

I don't know what statistics you used, but states that rely off of heavily taxing the rich (such as California) are in an economic disaster. High cost of living, high unemployment, and a low quality of life. Whereas states that have less spending, less taxes for everyone are better off economically. For example, Texas.Syk0_k03r

1. Rick Perry has almost doubled the size of Texas government to $90 billlion
2. Rick Perry has doubled the Texas debt
3. Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes in Texas

Texas is a nice example.

I have alot of money but far from "super rich".

Sure I'll get flamed but I think the rich SHOULD pay higher taxes and I'm willing to pay higher as well.

ANd also the republican (or the tea party fanatics like to call the rich "job creators" now so they can stick their words and money where the sun don't shine.

I used statistics provided by the IRS. Also, we are talking about FEDERAL TAXES...not state...these are across the board for all states. You can look at tax rates vs jobless rates, gdp, and other statistics over the course of many years.

[QUOTE="Syk0_k03r"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

How do you balance the budget AND abolish the income tax? Cut spending to zero?

Renevent42

Our defense budget alone is like 30% of our total taxes...

Your idea would only work in fantasy land.

There's so much corruption that no matter whatyou do it will still be a scumbag's playground. So just learn to play the game.