Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Do You Rob Banks? (21 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  WiA - For someone in the top 2% to pay (0+ / 0-)

    less than the ALTMIN rate they have to generate a significant portion of their income from capital gains. Even people in the top 1%, earning more than $400,000, can't drop their tax rate to 21% if that $400,000 is all or nearly all earned income. It's really the top .1 or maybe .25%, who are primarily investors and generate most of their income from capital gains that drops the averages to 21%. Mitt Romney was a very good example. This isn't about having better accountants. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 removed nearly all of the mechanisms that were available to reduce taxes on earned income. If you have a cardiac surgeon who makes $500,000 a year he is going to pay at least ALTMIN rates.

    Coffeetalk's main point is that there is only so much we can raise in taxing the income of the top 2% because there are only 2% of them. Small additional taxes from the middle class provides an overwhelming about of additional tax revenue because of the large numbers. To work our way out of Trillion dollar annual deficits will take more revenue which will need to include tax increases for most Americans.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 09:03:50 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I know I have paid far less many times (0+ / 0-)

      both due to investment income from IPOs and M&A events AND owning small businesses...

      It's never been that difficult.

      Again, no one suggest that the whole solution is increasing tax rates. But the fact is, taxes for the top have been slashed in half and it hasn't raised all boats, like people were promised it would. In fact, historically, we've done better when those rates were much higher. Let's go back to the 80s. Ditto for executive wages...

      Last, who said that working our way out of the trillion dollar annual deficits is the top priority. If DEMOCRATS would stop repeating this Right-wing talking point, maybe it would be easier to lobby for an alternative...?

      When 1% take 121% of the gains from "recovery", people actually recovering from lost employment are trading down on wages and benefits. Current strategies by moderates don't even consider winning the Class War.

      by Words In Action on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 09:25:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The other thing, VC, if executives weren't (0+ / 0-)

      earning 400 X the average, but say 40 X, as in the 80s, AND they were paying 1980s tax rates, THAT would make a huge difference...

      THAT's what we really need.

      And the only reason we won't get it is not the Right, it's the Middle... If the middle were as intent as the Left, the Right would be irrelevant...

      When 1% take 121% of the gains from "recovery", people actually recovering from lost employment are trading down on wages and benefits. Current strategies by moderates don't even consider winning the Class War.

      by Words In Action on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 09:54:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  WiA - If executives were earning less (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk

        but paying the statutory RATES of the 80s, prior to TRA86, we would be in new territory. However in the 80s, 70s, and 60s executives made less and had effective rates that were half the top statutory rates because the code allowed you to effectively shelter your earned income from federal taxes. The grand bargain of TRA86 was dropping rates and a complete rewrite of the IRS code for individuals, which eliminated nearly all tax shelters. Rates from the 80s, and the current code, would be new territory with effective rates for high income earners the US has never seen, which I am sure would please many.

        Regarding senior executive compensation, I have some thoughts about why they have skyrocketed and will someday soon put them in a diary.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:41:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like to see that. I'd also like to see your (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          thoughts on the relationship of concentration of wealth -- now v.s that of the late 70s -- on the overall health of the economy and society. Because it seems to me that if you recognize how destructive it is, then you can't be satisfied with the policies that allow current concentration to continue and even grow. In fact, dissatisfaction should be a mild way of putting it.

          We've all Republicans say how the Party has left them. With each year, the path of the Third Way seems to stray farther and farther from the Party platform. You simply can't achieve that platform with the kind of policies we pursue and accept these days.

          When 1% take 121% of the gains from "recovery", people actually recovering from lost employment are trading down on wages and benefits. Current strategies by moderates don't even consider winning the Class War.

          by Words In Action on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 01:15:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  WiA - we can't have a wealth tax (0+ / 0-)

            without a Constitutional Amendment and the results in Europe in the countries that have them is very mixed. Some have dropped them. On a federal level you have estate taxes and higher marginal income taxes, and changing the treatment of capital gains as the major dials that can be turned. With only those tools it will be a few generations before the wealth accumulation would be affected unless the estate taxes were very high.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 04:59:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site