30
Rich Utilitarians
A group called Wealth for the Common Good has launched a campaign to repeal the Bush tax cuts immediately, instead of waiting for them to expire in 2011. But this isn't a grassroots organization of low-paid activists. These people are rich, and they want to pay more taxes.
From the group's website:
We would see a minimal tax increase--from 35% to 39.6%, a rate still far lower than the one under President Reagan--but the increased revenue would raise an estimated $43 billion per year. This would affect a very small fraction of U.S. taxpayers--about 2.5 percent.
We believe high-income households want President Obama to move our country toward stability, fiscal responsibility and sensible taxation and investment. We call on Congress to immediately reverse the 2001 tax cuts on those of us with taxable incomes over $235,000. We should not wait.
The guy who inherited the Oscar Mayer fortune, Chuck Collins, is a co-founder of Wealth for the Common Good. Here's what he said last week about the House health care bill that would also increase the tax burden on the wealthy:
"The proposed tax surcharge would impact those of us with the greatest capacity to pay, about one out of 100 taxpayers. That revenue could be used to pay for much needed improvements to our broken health care system, and provide coverage for over 50 million Americans who are uninsured, while protecting employer-provided health care benefits."
Other Wealth members include Bill Gates, Sr. (yes, the father) and Eric Schoenberg, former partner of NYC investment bank. The group was formed just a few months ago, with this raison d'etre:
Over the last 30 years, we have disproportionately benefited from the economic policies. We feel it's time rebalance the economy so that it works for everyone -- not just the wealthy. Our country is facing unprecedented economic challenges right now: We all need to pay our fair share to resolve these issues and make long overdue investments in education, health, energy and infrastructure.
I'm sure any debate about this group will be divided by economic philosophy, but your thoughts are welcome anyway!
Pages
"
repeal the Bush tax cuts immediately,
"
If you had that much pocket change, would you entrust it to our government without the fear that most of it would be siphoned off by the mob before it ever gets to the poor Hindu farmers who now opt for suicide for want of a large enough farm to survive? Would you guess that Chinese Birth Patrol had more than a modicum of price tag? Could these wealthy benefactors reduce ratio of population to available farmland?
U B Judge
?
Most middle class, taxpaying, time card punching, servile minions like myself dream of being rich. We DO NOT want to dream of being taxed more. So whenever someone comes out with an idea to tax the rich, we see it as a tax on our dreams and aspirations. If you read between the lines the response should sound like this, "how dare the government ruin my champagne wishes and caviar dreams."
We also have a difficult time understanding why an ultra rich person would be OK with giving more away. But if you already have enough to cover a $1500 a month Maserati lease, then paying 4% more per year in Fed income tax isn't that big of a deal, is it?
A better way to look at it is that most rich Americans probably wouldn't be rich if they didn't live in the U.S.
You can think of taxes like a neighborhood association fee. It's overhead for living in a country where you have the opportunity to get rich in the first place.
Funny, during those high-tax days we had stable, steady growth, a thriving middle class, a CEO class that seemed to squeak by OK on salaries that were a mere 20 to 50 (instead of 400 to 500) times that of the lowest-paid workers, and a distinct absence of bubble-and-bust economic cycles. Oh, what terrible, awful days those were. How'd all those tax cuts work out, buys?
Yeah, Bob, that Oscar Mayer guy and Bill Gates never did a lick of work in their lives, never built a damn thing, had everything handed to them on a silver platter. And don't give a dime to charity, either.
Clearly this whole concept, once you're able to get your brain around it, will blow up your entire worldview. So -- careful!
Bob: Did you even check their website to see who they are? The list includes architects, attorneys, doctors, and venture capitalists:
http://wealthforcommongood.org/about-us/our-signers/
You seriously think that the rich were OVERTAXED under Ronald Reagan?
Many people are ignorant about the history of income taxation in this country. The super-wealthy now pay just 35% tax -- or less, if they have good tax lawyers and accountants (which of course they do). Many of them are effectively paying a lower rate than those of us in the middle class!
It's bizarre to me how middle-class people get upset about the prospect that the super-rich might have to pay a slightly higher (just 4.6% more!) rate of income tax.
In the '70s the richest paid 50%... before that, 70%. Under Eisenhower, they paid 91%!
I'm not advocating a return to those levels of taxation. But these people are doing quite well because of the opportunities that America has afforded them. They can well afford to give back a little more.
People don't really understand what exactly Reagan did and how it has affected us.
Reagan's policies caused a massive shift in the tax burden over time to middle class income earners and at the same time it caused a massive shift in wealth from wage earners to corporate and capital gains earners.
It started out with a change in the way corporations were allowed to write down assets. Then there were cuts in capital gains and corporate income tax rates.
So what happened? Think of income as water in an economy with uneven terrain. When they changed the tax balance on income, they changed the grade on the terrain. So, the water sought a new level and the economy "adjusted" by shifting forms income towards capital gains and corporate profits and away from regular wages.
It sounds like most of these are individuals that have never had to work hard and build for themselves anyway. They have enough time on their hands and enough in their pockets to give so that it makes them feel good. Just pick up a hammer and go contribute to those in need in the 9th Ward, how about these same practicing self rightous giving to organizations that help the homeless, elderly, fatherless. There are many that can handle money better than the government and so go out and get involved rather than advocate making other give to the black hole of the government. If they want, give away, not everyone is trying to balance out financial success for those few that are feeling guilty.
Tom: Sorry, what's your evidence that these people don't want the government to be better stewards of tax money? They explained pretty clearly what they wanted this money to go for -- things like health care.
Joey: Re-read the article. It's not about "preventing others from getting to their level". This proposal only effects people who are already at the uber-wealthy level -- the top 1% of taxpayers. You and I would not see any increase. (I assume you are not a multi-millionaire.)
First, my comment was tongue in cheek.
However, if you think it only affects the uber-wealthy, you are incorrect (or your idea of uber-wealthy is much different than mine). This is a tax on <u>income</u>, not wealth.
Also, the Reagan comment is a red herring, IMO. Reagan didn't raise taxes during a recession did he?
What percentile of wage earners do you consider to be middle class?
Pages
