Income Gap Between The Rich And Poor

[barracuda]

The animosity is coming from the White House. Obama constantly claims that the wealthiest Americans, those earning 250,000 or more are not paying their fair share...He is constantly engaging in class warfare...promising to take from the wealthy and make them pay their fair share....Even though only 51% of the people in this country are still actually paying taxes!

The President is merely calling for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, so the 33% bracket would go to 36%, and the 35% bracket would go to 39.6%. These are still low by historical standards, and unlikely to seriously affect high income folks. After all, we're only talking about the marginal income tax rate. A married couple making $250,000 would pay an additional $1,131 in taxes based on the current tax brackets if the Bush tax cuts were eliminated. And that's not even taking into account exemptions that reduce taxable income. Only those couples making over $379,150 would pay the 39.6% marginal rate.

Eliminating these tax cuts would raise about $700B over the next decade and help balance the budget - something Bush didn't take into account when he passed the tax cuts without appropriate spending cuts.

[RedScare]

Well, it appears that perhaps 6 people listened to me.

Gang of 6 propose $4 Trillion Deficit Plan

The tax reform outline would set up three income tax rates — a bottom rate of 8-12 percent; a middle rate of 14-22 percent; and a top rate of 23-29 percent — to replace the current system that has a bottom rate of 10 percent, with five additional rates topping out at 35 percent.

It would reduce but not eliminate tax breaks on mortgage interest, higher-cost health plans, charitable deductions, retirement savings like individual retirement accounts and tax-free savings accounts known as 401(k)s, and tax credits for families with children.

Like the president's deficit commission, the Senate group's plan calls for a fundamental overhaul of the tax code that would slash special tax preferences and deductions as a way to lower tax rates — along the lines of the 1986 tax reform measure signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. It would skim some of the revenue to reduce the deficit and, advocates say, would spur the economy and fill federal coffers further because of growth.

[KinkaidAlum]

That's the best plan I've seen. It's a GREAT start and certainly beats the circus taking place in the House today. Seriously, those fools spent the whole day voting on a symbolic bill that will never pass and doesn't have a single itemized cut listed?

Governing isn't about being an uncompromising bully. I am so tired of our two party system.

[Fringe]

The President is merely calling for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, so the 33% bracket would go to 36%, and the 35% bracket would go to 39.6%. These are still low by historical standards, and unlikely to seriously affect high income folks. After all, we're only talking about the marginal income tax rate. A married couple making $250,000 would pay an additional $1,131 in taxes based on the current tax brackets if the Bush tax cuts were eliminated. And that's not even taking into account exemptions that reduce taxable income. Only those couples making over $379,150 would pay the 39.6% marginal rate.

Eliminating these tax cuts would raise about $700B over the next decade and help balance the budget - something Bush didn't take into account when he passed the tax cuts without appropriate spending cuts.

Raising taxes is not the answer to a government out of control on spending.

[Marksmu]

Well, it appears that perhaps 6 people listened to me.

Gang of 6 propose $4 Trillion Deficit Plan

The article is very vague, but I feel that ANY tax code changes need to be met with a balanced budget amendment as well.

We can not raise the debt ceiling, increase taxes, even marginally, and not put an absolute end to deficit spending and expect an outcome any different than what we currently have.

Democrats have proven they will outspend any revenue increases...they see tax increases as more revenue to spend. I can only hope that the house is not foolish enough to compromise without forcing the end to deficit spending.

[Fringe]

The article is very vague, but I feel that ANY tax code changes need to be met with a balanced budget amendment as well.

We can not raise the debt ceiling, increase taxes, even marginally, and not put an absolute end to deficit spending and expect an outcome any different than what we currently have.

Democrats have proven they will outspend any revenue increases...they see tax increases as more revenue to spend. I can only hope that the house is not foolish enough to compromise without forcing the end to deficit spending.

Amen to that although I should point out Republicans have done their share of wasting our hard earned tax money also.

[Highway6]

Seriously, those fools spent the whole day voting on a symbolic bill that will never pass....

Same could possibly be said for the Senate's gang of 6 plan since it's already established the House probably won't go for it.

If the HoR and Senate are controlled by different parties, then this could be said about 90% of the bills out there.

Not that I hope this new plan doesn't pass.. I do.

[Marksmu]

Amen to that although I should point out Republicans have done their share of wasting our hard earned tax money also.

I do not limit wasteful spending to either party. Both are outrageous, but the democrats far outspend the republicans.

All these "cuts" mean nothing if they are only to take place in the future....they are just passing the buck to the next set of senators to clean up the mess they made.

As a voting fiscal conservative, I will be upset if they agree to any plan that does not cap spending at non-deficit levels...otherwise I say let the defaults begin. We will not default on bonds....or Social Security, just pet programs that are "unfunded" any way.

I am fine with that. We can just stop funding programs that are not essential until 2012 when we can finally take out the trash and start fixing this mess.

[west20th]

I do not limit wasteful spending to either party. Both are outrageous, but the democrats far outspend the republicans.

All these "cuts" mean nothing if they are only to take place in the future....they are just passing the buck to the next set of senators to clean up the mess they made.

As a voting fiscal conservative, I will be upset if they agree to any plan that does not cap spending at non-deficit levels...otherwise I say let the defaults begin. We will not default on bonds....or Social Security, just pet programs that are "unfunded" any way.

I am fine with that. We can just stop funding programs that are not essential until 2012 when we can finally take out the trash and start fixing this mess.

Really?

Democrats '81 - '10: years in power ->09: percent increase in Fed debt->25.5

GOP since '81 - '10: years in power->20: percent increase in Fed debt->163.4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

[Simbha]

Really?

Democrats '81 - '10: years in power ->09: percent increase in Fed debt->25.5

GOP since '81 - '10: years in power->20: percent increase in Fed debt->163.4

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

As a corollary to this, I'll also point out that the average job growth rate under Democratic presidents has been about 3% per term of office, while that for Republican presidents has been less than 1% per term.

And, average GDP growth rates have been about 2.6% under Democratic presidents starting with Carter and about 2.5% under Republican presidents during this time. Not a significant difference - but the point here is that it's not leaning the other way.

I'm not a supporter of the Democratic party or a partisan supporter of any of its members, but I don't think Democratic presidential administrations should be vilified as they are in our society. Democratic Houses, which have dominated for the past 30+ years, on the other hand...

I will give credit to both Clinton and the 105th/106th Houses (Republican) for curbing spending during the first Clinton term.

[Marksmu]

Really?

Democrats '81 - '10: years in power ->09: percent increase in Fed debt->25.5

GOP since '81 - '10: years in power->20: percent increase in Fed debt->163.4

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

I dont see it that way. Look at this chart, which shows spending by year, president, and who controlled Congress.

Best years were under Democrat President Clinton and a Republican Congress.

Worst year - All Democrat under Obama.

Republicans clearly lost their way from 01-05, but if the Republicans were lost at that time, then the Democrats have not even figured out they are lost yet...

Bush was not fiscally conservative by any means, but Democrats controlled Spending under Bush for the last half of his presidency...how they can blame the spending they controlled on him is beyond me.

The train fell off the tracks in 2007 under a Democrat controlled Congress...Obama has done nothing but make it worse.

[crunchtastic]

I didn't have much interest in bumping the thread, but couldn't resist posting this article. It's an unscientific but fascinating little insider piece on just how stacked the odds are against the overhwelming majority. It's long been my belief that the Rep/Dem 'philosphoical' differences (regulation, taxation, for example) ceased to be real differences a long, long time ago. The current debt ceiling negotiations charade is exactly that.

http://ampedstatus.org/who-rules-america-an-investment-manager-breaks-down-the-economic-top-1-says-0-1-controls-political-and-legislative-process/

The takeaway is pretty straighforward-- policy and law is written (and will continue to be) for the benefit of the top 0.1%. Because this extreme concentration of wealth is so dangerous, government has no intention of ever allowing the top to fail. Regardless of economic impact to the bottom 99.9%.

[sifuwong]

Deal or no deal? US downgrade looking likely

Market analysts are beginning to think the US will avoid a default, but lose its AAA rating

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Deal-or-no-deal-US-downgrade-apf-204931177.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

[barracuda]

Raising taxes is not the answer to a government out of control on spending.

Grover Norquist would be proud. After all, it's his tax pledge that's holding the Republican party hostage, and he did say his goal is to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” Because government bad, freedom (or more realistically, plutocracy) good.

[Fringe]

Grover Norquist would be proud. After all, it's his tax pledge that's holding the Republican party hostage, and he did say his goal is to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” Because government bad, freedom (or more realistically, plutocracy) good.

I would gladly sign that pledge.

[VicMan]

I would gladly sign that pledge.

Maybe this will help...

What aspects of the federal government do you believe are unnecessary?

[Ross]

Maybe this will help...

What aspects of the federal government do you believe are unnecessary?

Department of Education,

Any of the many SWAT teams that aren't in the FBI or US Marshall's

TSA

most of Homeland Security

Most of EPA

USDA Bunny Inspectors

etc.

[RedScare]

Department of Education,

Any of the many SWAT teams that aren't in the FBI or US Marshall's

TSA

most of Homeland Security

Most of EPA

USDA Bunny Inspectors

etc.

Congratulations! You just saved the government $140 Billion, less than 10% of the deficit! You should be on the super committee.

Of course, you just kicked 9 million kids out of college who rely on the $17 Billion in Pell Grants administered by the Dept of Ed. No matter, once the minimum wage job creator, Rick Perry, becomes president, they'll be taken care of.

You also just ditched the Coast Guard, so I hope you have made plans to protect our coasts. Immigration? Customs? We should rename the ports and borders 'Welcome Centers', because since you just eliminated ICE, we have no Border Patrol, and no one to inspect cargo for terrorist bombs. We also have no legal immigrants, since you took away INS.

FEMA? Gone. Stock up on bottled water and ice. You're gonna need it.

Secret Service? Nada. Let the president hire his own bodyguards.

Good job. What else you gonna get rid of?

[Fringe]

Maybe this will help...

What aspects of the federal government do you believe are unnecessary?

It's not just about being necessary or unnecessary, it's about efficiency. It's about wasteful spending. It's about being held accountable. The Federal Government should be able to protect our nation, most everything else should be handled by the States.

The best thing the Tax Reform Act advocates is a flat tax, which I also support.

[VicMan]

It's not just about being necessary or unnecessary, it's about efficiency. It's about wasteful spending. It's about being held accountable. The Federal Government should be able to protect our nation, most everything else should be handled by the States.

The best thing the Tax Reform Act advocates is a flat tax, which I also support.

IMHO I would define "wasteful spending" as unnecessary spending, which is why I used the words "necessary" and "unnecessary".

"The Federal Government should be able to protect our nation, most everything else should be handled by the States." - But protect how and from what?

"The best thing the Tax Reform Act advocates is a flat tax, which I also support." - Are you meaning a flat federal income tax? If there is nothing else to the tax code than a flat federal income tax, I don't think a flat tax would be feasible today, especially with such a large disparity in incomes existing today.

[Fringe]

IMHO I would define "wasteful spending" as unnecessary spending, which is why I used the words "necessary" and "unnecessary".

"The Federal Government should be able to protect our nation, most everything else should be handled by the States." - But protect how and from what?

"The best thing the Tax Reform Act advocates is a flat tax, which I also support." - Are you meaning a flat federal income tax? If there is nothing else to the tax code than a flat federal income tax, I don't think a flat tax would be feasible today, especially with such a large disparity in incomes existing today.

If your asking me to list every bit of wasteful spending ( unnecessary if you will) then it's not going to happen. Look at sites like Pork Barrel Spending or check the many reports of wasteful spending by the many federal agencies like FEMA, NASA, etc.

Protect us from foreign invaders. Protect our borders. Etc.

A flat tax would eliminate the tax loopholes that the rich use so there wouldn't be as large disparity as there is today. I would be just as happy with the Fair tax. Anything would be better then what we have now.

[jgriff]

Congratulations! You just saved the government $140 Billion, less than 10% of the deficit! You should be on the super committee.

Of course, you just kicked 9 million kids out of college who rely on the $17 Billion in Pell Grants administered by the Dept of Ed. No matter, once the minimum wage job creator, Rick Perry, becomes president, they'll be taken care of.

You also just ditched the Coast Guard, so I hope you have made plans to protect our coasts. Immigration? Customs? We should rename the ports and borders 'Welcome Centers', because since you just eliminated ICE, we have no Border Patrol, and no one to inspect cargo for terrorist bombs. We also have no legal immigrants, since you took away INS.

FEMA? Gone. Stock up on bottled water and ice. You're gonna need it.

Secret Service? Nada. Let the president hire his own bodyguards.

Good job. What else you gonna get rid of?

No problem. The states can take car of all of that except the secret service and coast guard. Just like they did before all these departments and agencies existed. If we didn't have to live under the same government agencies that people want in NY and CA we'd probably be a much more united country. Let NY and CA have their big government.

[KinkaidAlum]

Your solution is to let the States handle everything other than the secret service and coast guard?

Yeah, that's going to work out well. You do realize that we have no money either, right?

[VicMan]

Well, not *every* one - maybe the most significant ones. You already mention pork as a broad category - But the big question is how to give disincentives against politicians and voting blocs spending on and supporting pork. Constituents want their representatives to fatten up their territories; that's why Alaskans like Ted Stevens. In order to stop pork one needs to find a way to put disincentives against pork.

"wasteful spending by the many federal agencies like FEMA, NASA, etc." - From my understanding "wasteful spending" from a particular agency could be a product of simply bad management rather than a need to pare down the scope of a particular agency or the federal government in general.

For instance the US government approved commercial space ventures in 1998. A CEO of a space venture company argued that NASA could remain in existence, but that it ought to focus on ventures that for profit companies would not do: http://news.cnet.com/Do-we-need-NASA/2009-11397_3-6211308.html - That is a possible argument for the scope of the federal government to change

About "Protect us from foreign invaders. Protect our borders. Etc. "

Well, there's also "protect us from fraudulent products," "protect us from prejudiced juries in state trials" (that's why the feds have federal civil rights violation trials), "protect our financial health at retirement age" (Social security)...

If your asking me to list every bit of wasteful spending ( unnecessary if you will) then it's not going to happen. Look at sites like Pork Barrel Spending or check the many reports of wasteful spending by the many federal agencies like FEMA, NASA, etc.

Protect us from foreign invaders. Protect our borders. Etc.

A flat tax would eliminate the tax loopholes that the rich use so there wouldn't be as large disparity as there is today. I would be just as happy with the Fair tax. Anything would be better then what we have now.

[RedScare]

No problem. The states can take car of all of that except the secret service and coast guard. Just like they did before all these departments and agencies existed. If we didn't have to live under the same government agencies that people want in NY and CA we'd probably be a much more united country. Let NY and CA have their big government.

Ah, yes. Let's just ignore the US Constitution, shall we? Let the states protect the borders. Let the states handle immigration. Let the states duke it out over interstate commerce (this is actually my favorite, seeing staunch capitalists push for 'state's rights', that would create a gauntlet for trucking goods cross country).

I rather suspect that you and other 'state's righters' didn't pay too close attention to the 10 year period PRIOR to the adoption of the Constitution. You should look into it. It may be enlightening. The US was broke and in gridlock, as the states would neither work together, nor pay their debts to the US. And the US was virtually powerless to stop it. The US Constitution was the solution to the motley crew of individual states that you pine for. If you are looking to hasten the demise of US exceptionalism, this is the quickest way to do it...completely neuter the greatest country in the world...oh, and then blame Obama for it.

[TheNiche]

Your solution is to let the States handle everything other than the secret service and coast guard?

Yeah, that's going to work out well. You do realize that we have no money either, right?

Texas also happens to be a state that generates more in federal tax revenue than it takes back by way of government spending. If we handled more programs in-state, it'd change who we send our taxes to, who spends them, and would probably work out better for our state economy.

[TheNiche]

Department of Education,

Yeah, the problem with that is that drop-outs in West Virginia don't just stay in West Virginia. They wind up here and become our problem. Of course, the obvious solution is secession. Then it becomes an immigration matter handled by Texas for Texas. (We'd probably suck at doing that, however.)

[RedScare]

Texas also happens to be a state that generates more in federal tax revenue than it takes back by way of government spending. If we handled more programs in-state, it'd change who we send our taxes to, who spends them, and would probably work out better for our state economy.

That hasn't been true in about 10 years. Texas went negative around 2002, and it has increased drastically since then, mostly due to military spending. With the current level of deficit spending, almost no states pay more than they get.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/22/rachel-maddow/msnbc-host-rachel-maddow-says-texas-routinely-rece/

And, I would have guessed you to be a bit more intelligent regarding the gains and losses of secession. Texas would have to fund its own military, navy (gotta protect those oil wells), and borders, as well as a whole host of other national reponsibilities it now takes for granted. Now, if the Republic of Texas were more of a nuetral state, like Switzerland or Norway, it might get away with a smaller military. But, since it is a loud and arrogant republic, it will spend dearly to protect itself from those it pisses off. Bullyism is expensive. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined.

[Fringe]

Once we form the Republic of Texas I think the first thing we should do is invade Canada and make them an unincorporated territory of ours.

[KinkaidAlum]

That hasn't been true in about 10 years. Texas went negative around 2002, and it has increased drastically since then, mostly due to military spending. With the current level of deficit spending, almost no states pay more than they get.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/22/rachel-maddow/msnbc-host-rachel-maddow-says-texas-routinely-rece/

And, I would have guessed you to be a bit more intelligent regarding the gains and losses of secession. Texas would have to fund its own military, navy (gotta protect those oil wells), and borders, as well as a whole host of other national reponsibilities it now takes for granted. Now, if the Republic of Texas were more of a nuetral state, like Switzerland or Norway, it might get away with a smaller military. But, since it is a loud and arrogant republic, it will spend dearly to protect itself from those it pisses off. Bullyism is expensive. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined.

BINGO.

And this doesn't even mention that if Texas had compele control over all of the things listed above, 3 out of 4 kids would likely live in poverty as opposed to the 1 out of 4 that do today.

The Exurbs would need bigger gates and more armed guards...