I know I'm just some tree-hugger out here in O-hi-a but somebody explain to me (again) why 22K households pay lower tax rates than you or I. Yeah, yeah--you're gonna tell me about "trickle down economics" and "a high tide raises all boats"--things that sound good in bar arguments or on bumper stickers, but I still don't get it. I mean, where do you draw the line? Should millionaires pay less for their milk b/c the money they save there will be passed on down to their employees, b/c as everyone knows, every millionaire is a small business owner who benevolently shares his or her profits w/ all his or her employees, right? (just like they extended the 40 hr workweek, healthcare, weekends off, sick leave, vacation time, etc all on their own--and those greedy labor unions came along and took all the credit).
It seems to me that since about 2000, we've tried tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and the result has been the worst economy since John Steinbeck was writing about dust bowls and fruit picking. Maybe the supply-siders are wrong . . . it sure looks that way. But facts be damned.
My good friend Jeff, who teaches at what we used to call a vocational school, was lamenting recently how few of his students actually study the issues and then make informed choices at the polls. It was a good conversation, but I didn't have the heart to tell him that the majority of adults operate the same way--they vote on their gut, or, worse, they rationalize their vote on some accepted fictionalized narrative (the economy does better w/ a Republican President--not true, go look at the stock market under Democratic Presidents).
Tell you what--I promise that I'll check out George Will and track down some David Frum, generally viewed as honest conservatives, if you promise to read honest progressives like Glenn Greenwald and Paul Krugman or to watch Rachel Maddow (yeah, yeah--it won't kill you). Wouldn't it be nice if we both voted this fall after being informed by facts, and then we made choices that actually benefited our communities and our families rather than just going with our gut or what the corporate media shilled to us? Doesn't that seem like a worthy pursuit? I sure think so . . .
* * * * *
*Elizabeth Warren email below (senatorial candidate in Massachusetts).
I wanted to forward one more email to you today. Like you, I've signed up for a few email lists.
On Monday, President Obama's team sent an email about the Buffett Rule -- legislation that makes sure people who make more than $1 million a year pay their fair share in taxes.
The President didn't ask me to do this, but I wanted to double check that you'd seen this email. It's that important.
In 2009, there were 22,000 households making more than $1 million annually but paying less than 15% of their income in income taxes -- and 1,470 paid no federal income taxes at all.
My opponent, Republican Senator Scott Brown, agrees with Mitt Romney that it's okay for millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than everyone else. He wants to block the Buffett Rule. I think that's wrong, and I'm standing with President Obama on this.
To me, the Buffett Rule shows what this upcoming election is all about. It's a clear choice: do we want a Senator who protects millionaires and billionaires while voting against rebuilding roads and bridges and voting against preventing layoffs for our teachers?
Or do we want to level the playing field, to change the rules so millionaires don't pay a lower tax rate than everyone else, and to use that money to honor our promises to our parents and to make the investments so more kids have their chance to get ahead?
Thanks,
Elizabeth
It seems to me that since about 2000, we've tried tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and the result has been the worst economy since John Steinbeck was writing about dust bowls and fruit picking. Maybe the supply-siders are wrong . . . it sure looks that way. But facts be damned.
My good friend Jeff, who teaches at what we used to call a vocational school, was lamenting recently how few of his students actually study the issues and then make informed choices at the polls. It was a good conversation, but I didn't have the heart to tell him that the majority of adults operate the same way--they vote on their gut, or, worse, they rationalize their vote on some accepted fictionalized narrative (the economy does better w/ a Republican President--not true, go look at the stock market under Democratic Presidents).
Tell you what--I promise that I'll check out George Will and track down some David Frum, generally viewed as honest conservatives, if you promise to read honest progressives like Glenn Greenwald and Paul Krugman or to watch Rachel Maddow (yeah, yeah--it won't kill you). Wouldn't it be nice if we both voted this fall after being informed by facts, and then we made choices that actually benefited our communities and our families rather than just going with our gut or what the corporate media shilled to us? Doesn't that seem like a worthy pursuit? I sure think so . . .
* * * * *
*Elizabeth Warren email below (senatorial candidate in Massachusetts).
I wanted to forward one more email to you today. Like you, I've signed up for a few email lists.
On Monday, President Obama's team sent an email about the Buffett Rule -- legislation that makes sure people who make more than $1 million a year pay their fair share in taxes.
The President didn't ask me to do this, but I wanted to double check that you'd seen this email. It's that important.
In 2009, there were 22,000 households making more than $1 million annually but paying less than 15% of their income in income taxes -- and 1,470 paid no federal income taxes at all.
My opponent, Republican Senator Scott Brown, agrees with Mitt Romney that it's okay for millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than everyone else. He wants to block the Buffett Rule. I think that's wrong, and I'm standing with President Obama on this.
To me, the Buffett Rule shows what this upcoming election is all about. It's a clear choice: do we want a Senator who protects millionaires and billionaires while voting against rebuilding roads and bridges and voting against preventing layoffs for our teachers?
Or do we want to level the playing field, to change the rules so millionaires don't pay a lower tax rate than everyone else, and to use that money to honor our promises to our parents and to make the investments so more kids have their chance to get ahead?
Thanks,
Elizabeth
You could just go ahead take $10 million from all 22,000 of those people and you couldn't pay for the federal deficit for the month of February ($225 Billion) It's not an income problem, it's a spending problem. To talk about wringing more money out of the wealthiest/luckiest/most criminal amoung us is like talking about removing the warts from a patient with stage 4 cancer. Talk about refunding the bailouts that sent billions into Buffet's investments or which theatre of war to shut down first if you want to make a difference.
ReplyDeleteLoving your blog, Eric. Hope it keeps going!
you and Hippy Tim are in agreement on this point (and I politely disagree). Now, if you mean spending on wars abroad, then I do agree w/ you both. But if you mean to cut programs and services for those who need them, while . . . well, I wrote about it here and in the "Hoover" post. But I know you guys worship at the altar of Reagan and his supply-side theories (haha).
ReplyDeletethanks for reading (and writing!), Brian--
Not the willing rider on the Reagan Bandwagon I once was. Suggest to you to use a similiar eye to revisit the The New Deal. It wasn't all that the history text books have built it up to be. These guys that expand goverment by stealing from the future get some growth in the present, but eventually that can gets too big to kick down the road. Eventually, like soon
ReplyDeleteI'm currently looking for a spot on the Harding or Coolidge Bandwagons...I'll keep you posted.
Hoover bus has some room, but it's filling up w/ the Austerity Anonymous folks . . .
ReplyDeleteso, Reagan swells the deficit as does Bush, yet it's the New Deal that's tainted?
On a related note--might it not just be time to increase revenue through the federal income tax; ultimately, much of that taxation gets shifted downward toward the middle class in a true regressive tax system, not the progressive tax that is federal income tax is/was intended to be . . .
Hoover started policies that Roosevelt ran with. It took over a decade for them to 'save' the country. I'll go with Harding who shut the government down and got us out of a similar depression in 18 months. I'll ride on the roof of his band-wagon.
ReplyDelete50% of Americans already get more from the government than they pay in. What are you going to progress from? You want to help the little guy by limiting the greatest regressive tax there is? Get the FED to stop pumping inflation into our lives. Or slash the spending by the Federal government. Like I've been saying, it's a spending problem not an income problem.
Dylan Ratigan is doing a great job covering the FED. Not that I have time to watch him because I'm too busy reading your blog!
ha! I appreciate you reading (and writing!) I might get into the FED at some point . . .
ReplyDeletebut, like I've been saying--we don't necessarily have a spending problem, we have a lack of revenue problem. And that, my friend, is where many liberals and conservatives part ways--it's the foundation of each of our philosophies in how try to "fix" things.