home

Progressive Taxation Popular With Americans

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:52:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Progressive taxation is cool again:

Americans want their government to create jobs through spending on public works, investments in alternative energy or skills training for the jobless. They also want the deficit to come down. And most are ready to hand the bill to the wealthy.

A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Dec. 3-7 shows two- thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit. [. . .] The appeal of taxes on the wealthy crosses party lines. About half of Republicans back the idea and it is more popular among Democrats and independents.

Tax the rich! Let's do it. Speaking for me only of course.

This is an Open Thread.

< CWA Poll: Americans Prefer Taxing Wealthy, Not Workers' Health Plans | Why Not Just Pass MedicAid Expansion? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Progressive Taxation Popular With Americans | 94 comments (94 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Silly man (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    If it were possible to raise taxes on the rich, Obama would have already done it.

    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:16:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Return to Clinton-era (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:15:51 PM EST
    tax rates? That's sooo partisan!

    I say screw peace and prosperity, it's too much work.

    According to alot of the evangelical (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:34:09 PM EST
    base, things HAVE to get worse and worse until the great desert warlord in the sky pulls the toilet chain -- somewhere in the ME.

    Any "secular" attempts to move in a different direction and alter the status quo in a "non-conservative" i.e., non-supply side, non-neocon foreign policy  way, would be against his will.

    Parent

    Yes, it's true (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    The Evangelicals are just waiting and salivating for The End Times.  Things have to get worse and worse, and, BTW, one of the main reasons they support Israel so much is because the continuation of the state of Israel is necessary for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. link
    As far as I'm concerned, I can't wait until these people are raptured up away from us, so that the rest of us can get on with our lives, without their insanities impinging upon us.

    Parent
    If only we could convince that crowd (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:01:44 PM EST
    that they need to go immediately to some place like the most remote, deserted and desolate area in Siberia to wait for their End Times.  Then we all might literally be able to have some peace around here.

    Parent
    It would be beside the point: (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    they're about punishing and making the non-believers miserable. They wouldnt be able to do that in Siberia.

    Parent
    Sadly, (none / 0) (#44)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:18:26 PM EST
    jondee, there's a lot of truth to that.  The thing that drives me the most crazy is their "Do as I say, not as I do" shtick.  Many of them seem to be perfectly comfortable with breaking the rules of their "Lord and Savior," as long as everyone else can be condemned and punished for not following their interpretation of these rules.  

    Parent
    I wouldn't even go so far (none / 0) (#43)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:13:23 PM EST
    as to consign them to Siberia (although that's tempting)- I'd be willing to give them one or two (or even a few more) southern states (or any true-red Evangelical-worshiping states), as long as we could cordon them off so that the rest of us could have our peace.  ;-)

    Parent
    My ancestral home is AL (none / 0) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:36:51 PM EST
    so I hope that either you are willing to pay top dollar for our liberal lands or will skip that state - lol

    Parent
    Oh noes! If we did that, some of (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:05:33 PM EST
    those rich people might have to give up their 4th, 5th, or 6th house!

    /snark

    yes (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    but Versailles say NO! and we mustnt upset Versailles!!

    And unless they plan (none / 0) (#2)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    on moving to Switzerland or the Caymans, tax what they send there.

    Parent
    Tax the rich... (none / 0) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    ...feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more.

    yes. (none / 0) (#17)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:20:18 PM EST


    Parent
    It's tempting... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    but my gut says it ain't righteous...how about no tax increases until we see some tyrannical spending decreases?  It is only fair.

    How (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:09:08 PM EST
    about cutting health insurance for all elected federal officials and their directly appointed staff.

    They can all buy their health insurance from "the exchange," cuz I've heard it's a fantastic way to buy insurance.

    I know it would be small potatoes, but oh, so satisfying.

    Oh, and let's cut their federal retirement too.

    Parent

    Im for very carefully vetted increases (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    in some areas, i.e., decent employment projects, safe neighborhoods for kids, city parks, hospitals, healthcare etc and for gutting the MIC endless war gravey train.

    Parent
    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    I'll kick in more for that...rarely works out that way though brother...especially the endless war bit....whats it a million bucks a troop? And the troop whose arse is on the line gets d*ck...cut all those leeches off and we're halfway there.

    Parent
    What would you cut? (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:45:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd cut defense/national security by 6% annually (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    would be little over 25% in one presidential term and 50% in two.  At the end of 8 years we'd still be spending 6 times China, our nearest rivsl in terms of militayr spending.

    And I would also raise the tax rates on the highest income brackets.

    Parent

    10% across the board? (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:49:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah, that's what people always say (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    when they don't want to admit that the first things to be cut are funds for "non-essential" programs that people tend to like. I'll tell you what: let's cancel the Navy, and then we can think about "wasteful domestic spending"

    Parent
    dunno, I supported Schwarzenegger's (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:11:40 PM EST
    10% across the board proposal. Maybe I was the only one...

    Parent
    It's an insane proposal (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:16:32 PM EST
    because it's clearly intended to head off any discussion of what programs are actually important. You have your bifurcation (10% cut or not), and I have mine (cancel the Navy or raise taxes on the rich).

    Parent
    They're all important, in someone's opinion. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    Cut 'em all equally.

    It's soooooooooooooo insaaaaaaaaaaane.

    Parent

    That's not how it works (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:25:17 PM EST
    People are elected, and the majority generally gets to decide what is more important. When Republicans are honest, usually it involves cutting social programs (i.e. their 1995 budget, which was designed to kill old people and starve poor people).

    Parent
    In CA.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    the minority rules.

    (big sigh)

    Parent

    That's exactly the point I was trying to draw out (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    When Republicans are in the minority, the become hysterically fuzzy about how public policy choices are supposed to be made.

    Parent
    answer....they aren't supposed to be made (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    because a dysfunctional govt boosts their argument that govt doesn't work.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Parent

    Except that when they're in charge, (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    they're happy to make the choices they believe in.

    Parent
    Actually, they pretty much screw up (none / 0) (#67)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:10:17 PM EST
    those too. With the possible exception of packing K street full of Repubs and creating "faith-based" initiatives.

    Parent
    Bush tax cut (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:55:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Ah yes. There is that. (none / 0) (#76)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:45:52 PM EST


    Parent
    If they are all important (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:25:41 PM EST
    why cut them at all?

    Parent
    "Across the board cut" really means (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    "Across the board cut*"

    *<sm>except for the things we like </sm>

    Parent

    Because there's a budget problem? (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:25:23 PM EST


    Parent
    how about medical spending? (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:16:25 PM EST
    I'm not trying to get into Godwin's law territory, but 10% of medical spending is not just going to cut into administrative costs.

    Parent
    I think you were the only one. (none / 0) (#19)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    Anyone with kids in public school would likely disagree.

    Our kids' classrooms went from 20-25 or 30 per, and we lost our TAs.

    Parent

    My kids are in CA public school, (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:22:24 PM EST
    grades 5 and 2. My property abuts a state park that I use several times each week, that has seen cuts and may be closing. I could go on.

    Parent
    a park is one thing (none / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:04:46 PM EST
    how about medical spending?

    Parent
    10% across the board. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:11:45 PM EST
    I know, I'm a callous bastard.

    btw, the park is why we bought the house and is an intrinsic part of my home's value - iow, if it's unusable my net worth drops.

    Parent

    you live in california, no? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:19:16 PM EST
    You must be aware of how the budget cuts took millions (52 to be exact) away from HIV/AIDS funding (link).

    If you're going to make cuts you have to do them surgically, or people will die.  True of living human beans, true of budgets.

    Parent

    The Bill Gates's of the world (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:27:33 PM EST
    will just have to step up where needed.

    Parent
    It's really not a very big step. n/t (none / 0) (#65)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:44:19 PM EST


    Parent
    True enough. (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    The trouble with the "someone will die" argument, is that it has no end. No matter what you do, no matter how much money spent, etc., etc., you can always say that its not enough, that if you don't do more "someone will die."

    Parent
    that's not how I would (none / 0) (#68)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    describe your view, personally.

    Parent
    I dare you to (none / 0) (#69)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:12:38 PM EST
    go to your PTA meeting and say that.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:38:55 AM EST
    My wife is one of the workhorses of our PTA. As a result I'm roped into every - and I mean every - event. And there have been a lot of events already this year, in order to replace the lost state funds. Today's event was the final day of the book fair. I'd really rather do all this stuff than see CA collapse in a financial morass. Ah well, it is what it is, somehow we will keep on keeping on...

    Parent
    You would? Do you really think (none / 0) (#86)
    by coigue on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    that volunteers are the answer to the problem?

    Jeez.

    I personally resent like hell the fact that my school asks for 100 bucks for each kid per year as a classroom donation.

    I don't begrudge my volunteering, but most of the work is done by a few people who have the time.

    There is no answer to be had here.

    The corporate tax cuts in prop 13 need to be overturned. We need to be able to raise taxes on a majority vote. The yacht tax cut and vehicle license fee cut should be repealed.

    We also need to raise revenue.

    But a 10% across the board tax cut assumes that every single expenditure is equally valuable. Governing requires making priorities, and CA needs to do so.

    Parent

    and also... (none / 0) (#87)
    by coigue on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    you did not say that you went to the PTA events and spouted your strange 10% assertion.

    Parent
    Strange is in the eye of the beholder. (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    The state's in real trouble, the fallout from state insolvency is unacceptable (too big to fail!) imo.

    My views are certainly known among my friends at my school, and although there are certainly some there I wouldn't say this stuff too, there are others there who agree with me that in tough times everyone needs to do with less. It's really not about what the state can do for us.

    We're old fashioned that way I guess.

    Parent

    Frankly, my children are covered. (none / 0) (#90)
    by coigue on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    It's other people's kids, the one who aren't getting the support from home that I worry about.

    Your attitude seems to be...every family for themselves.

    Well, guess what? We all have to live with each other.

    Guess I am an old-fashioned liberal/reaslist in that way.

    Parent

    Hardly. (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    My attitude is that the many volunteer hours and dollars we all put into our schools and other various comunities benefit everyone, not just our own family(s).

    Parent
    It does. But there aren't enough volunteers (none / 0) (#92)
    by coigue on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 04:04:38 PM EST
    to do it all.

    Not nearly enough.

    Parent

    True enough, (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    but I'm not aware of anyone suggesting there are enough volunteers to "do it all."

    Anyway, have a great weekend, time for me to go.

    Parent

    you said... (none / 0) (#94)
    by coigue on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 12:40:54 AM EST
    that you don't expect government to do it...

    and that you don't think volunteers can do it all...

    so who does it? How do our kids get a good education?

    Parent

    Seven hundred military bases (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    to be replaced with public works projects; no more thousand dollar wrenches "procured" by Pentagon stooges guaranteed post-retirement cushy positions with govt contractors. Permanantly close the revolving door.

    And publicly financed elections.

    Parent

    DEA, ICE, NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF, DOD.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:08:20 PM EST
    to name a couple acronyms for starters.

    Parent
    Military. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jpe on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:56:10 PM EST
    Tons of it.

    Americans are taxed more than enough; the problem isn't our tax rates but out spending priorities.

    Parent

    Two Qustions (none / 0) (#8)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    This is dumb. Define a rich person and i'll explain to you how they are not really rich, while most "non rich" people are.

    Also if you want to tax the rich we should have across the board tax increases because the avg american family maxes 100X a day what the avg citizen of the world does.

    looks like zero questions to me. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:22:32 PM EST
    and that IS dumb.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    "This is dumb" pretty much describes your comment.

    I like the first part the best where apparently the more money you have, the less "rich" you are (I assume we are talking in monetary terms here, not emotional or some other definition of "rich").  I would LOVE to hear that logic.

    As for the second par, it is totally useless.  The avg citizen of the world #1 - doesn't have the same cost of living, and #2 - doesn't live here and therefore has nothing to do with our tax rates.

    Parent

    my post not dumb higer taxes are (none / 0) (#89)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 01:37:27 PM EST
    First thank you for allowing me to explain.

    No my point is that small busniess owners get taxed on gross revenue regardless of profit margins. Its called pass threw taxation. So a lot of the "250"K a year "rich" people that the presedent talks about are not rich. Where as say someone who make 50  to 60K a year salary is proobly in equally good financle shape. In real money terms. Yes the SMBO would have a higer nominal income, but very likly a lower real income.

    as to the second part.#1 It shows how blind you are to the problems in the rest of the world. If you make a dollar a day (avg income of world citizen) and cost go up even slitly your cost of living skyrockets. Are you really saying that someone who makes a dollar a day is not poor because of lower cost of living? They can't even afford basic food stuff!

    #2) A) True that don't live here but the point of that stament is the hypocrisey of the rich/poor dichotomy in America. If you can aford a place to live and food in your mouth you are rich beyond comparison to most people in the world. Hell we even have safe roads and easy access to clean watter.

        B) Our tax system is so bs its not funny. It's all about marginal tax rates, and its just wrong that "poor" fokes can have a bigger economic impact and cause more growth than rich people. ( The reason for decreasing taxes on the poor). While they do have a higher marginal propensity to spend. They can not creat massive growth that the "investment class" to borrow a phrase can. All things being equal if you decrease taxes on the rich, you will have a net increase in tax revenue. Think about it.I'm not a "flat tax" or "unfair tax nut" or some dumb a neo-con just a person with a brain that can read and understand economics. I am personaly for decreasing taxes for everyone.

    While not popular it is the truth.

    Parent

    explain (none / 0) (#49)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    you offered why aren;t rich folks rich and then why are non-rich rich?

    Parent
    Digby on Li'l Luke (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:23:04 PM EST
    I missed this the other day - funny and appalling and so true.

    I prefer "eat the rich" (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:23:23 PM EST
    but taxing them is ok too

    are the rich organic? (none / 0) (#29)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:35:20 PM EST


    Parent
    free range (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    rich

    Parent
    If you closed your eyes (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:43:43 PM EST
    you'd swear it was chicken.

    Parent
    I bet Cheney's pretty tasty (none / 0) (#34)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    although a bit long in the tooth

    Parent
    There goes my appetite! (none / 0) (#37)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    Somehow, I can't imagine pure, concentrated evil would taste all that good.  

    Parent
    Yeah, you're right (none / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    and he isn't even "fun" evil.

    Parent
    Oh, Cheney's probobly (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:53:53 PM EST
    like one of those Japanese blowfish: you have to  cut out certain highly virulent parts out and the rest produces a very weird altered state.

    Btw, Was Cheney himself trying to bag a rich guy on that hunting trip?

    Parent

    I dunno....was it fava bean season???? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:47:05 PM EST
    Did he have some chianti?

    Parent
    You couldn't find a... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:23:56 PM EST
    bigger fan of eating the rich than me 5 years ago Cap...then it started sounding a lot like "let them eat cake"...can't we all just get along?

    If some cat's pursuit of happiness is a big pile o' money to swim in, I've got no desire to soak 'em to feed a machine that causes direct harm to too many people.  Not without some housekeeping.  

    All that being said sh*t hits the fan and I go pirate I ain't robbing no broke d*ck like me:)  

    Parent

    On that tax the rich (none / 0) (#38)
    by JamesTX on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    thing, I'm down. They benefit more from the common infrastructure so they should pay more into it. Let one of them say they don't and will show you 100 ways they do -- real, defensible, ways they take wealth out of the system for free. They externalize the costs of maintaining their so-called private wealth onto the rest of us. The whole conservative movement, and especially the younger, hipper, free-market-worship/Atlas Shrugged type ideologues simply fail to recognize the simple fact that the rich in the U.S. externalize (socialize) costs of doing business and maintaining their places in the world. The most obvious way is that they extract the valuable labor from laborers who must then turn to government or family for health and survival. It costs more to work a minimum wage job, in real long term costs, than the job pays. But they pathologize and criminalize unemployment to make employment at any cost the only option. Since the low income worker can't do that math (and doesn't have time to), they take the deal, then eventually they default onto the public. The industry leaves its consumed human corpses behind for somebody else to take care of. Somebody is getting that labor and profiting from it, and it is you know who.

    No doubt... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:37:35 PM EST
    but what good does it do transfer funds from one cartel to another that leaves corpses behind?  Plus the people who come into mad cash in a positive way, without the means to hide money offshore and hire shark accountants.

    The problem is we have the government we deserve, and not the one we desire.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#51)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:39:45 PM EST
    know what you mean, but I really feel that we deserve better than this.

    Parent
    I hate the word "deserve" (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:56:59 PM EST
    but why shouldnt everybody deserve better than this?

    Parent
    Because we... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:13:34 PM EST
    vote for this...well 98% or so of those who vote vote for this.  We're lazy...accept it and expect it.

    Despite it all, the cover of the paper is "Tiger Woods" and not "Widespread Food Shortage"...so we got that goin' for us.

    Most of us...the food banks are hurtin'.  Get your canned goods out people.  

    Parent

    Making my contribution... (none / 0) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:20:05 PM EST
    ...to the local food bank tonight.  Cash money, not cans though--I don't have anything tasty in can form...  

    Someone seems to have cornered the market on Chef Boy-ar-dee.  :)

    Parent

    Good for you (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:56:30 PM EST
    I would guess that cash is better for them anyway.

    Parent
    Donating part of my market share.... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 08:43:48 AM EST
    I'll reload throughout the new year for when the apocolypse hits:)

    Hope the less fortunate in my 'hood like Beef-a-Roni.

    Parent

    What's not to like?! (none / 0) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 08:56:03 AM EST
    Got your starches, your veggies (fruit actually) and your protein all in one dish!  

    I heard on the news last night that CO is 5th in personal income, but 38th in charitable donations.  Glad I did my part to improve those numbers a bit.

    Parent

    A person having alot (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:54:35 PM EST
    of money dosnt make them inherently evil. I would say though that it gives them an extra amount of a certain kind of responsibility and sometimes another whole set problems, see: Woods, Tiger. As Ouspensky said, too much possibility can drive a man crazy.

    And, over on the other side of the tracks, as your homeboy says, it's hard to be a saint in the city..

    Parent

    Mo Money, (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    Mo Problems....being broke is not without its small priveledges.

    Though it is hard to understand why some of the wealthy get so vehement about it...its an addiction like any other I guess.  

    Parent

    That's inane. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jpe on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:57:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Upperclassese (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    for I respectfully disagree. Sir.

    Parent
    Of course high income earners should pay more (none / 0) (#52)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:43:12 PM EST
    on that part of their income over 200,000, than that part over 1 million.  And NO separate tax rate/structure for income earned through "investment", i.e., capital gains.

    Ridiculous most people trudge off to work day after day while the super rich soaking in sun louging around the pool have nearly all their "earnings" taxed at a flat 15 friggin per cent.  Save your, "but we get to eat the crumbs that fall off their table" argument for someone who cares, not me.  Dickens rather nicely disabused me of that logic when I was in high school.

    On this progressive tax structure I completely agree with BTD.  I suspect we'd disagree on the need to also cut defense/national security spending, redirecting that in the short term to pump priming and loger term redirect a third of defnse savings to social programs and the other 2/3 to debt reduction.

    I am also 100% in favor of WJ Bryan's idea to draft a portion of peoples' net worth, of those ineligible for real drafting, during times of war.  

    Brian Kelly goes to Notre Dame (none / 0) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    Sorry, Bearcats, but the siren song of the Irish is just too strong to resist.

    I'll sleep better tonight... (none / 0) (#71)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    ...knowing it's not Coach Ferentz headed to South Bend.  

    Parent
    Cynical (none / 0) (#75)
    by diogenes on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:35:52 PM EST
    Who are the rich?  You won't lower the deficit much unless you tax people making 100,000 plus, and the populist rant about tax the rich isn't exactly pushing this.  

    Reducing the deficit is just a collateral benefit (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:55:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Progressive Taxation Popular With Americans | 94 comments (94 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment