OMG! What if the wealthy have to pay more . . .
Oh, the horror!
Apparently, something akin to panic has set in among the richest Americans, who are contemplating the possibility (although it seems increasingly remote) that they may be asked to make a small financial sacrifice to restore fiscal health to the nation that has given them so much. That’s right: Many among the wealthy are anxiously eyeing news from Washington about a possible tax increase.
That proposal hasn’t been debated anywhere with more fear than on Wall Street, home to some of the nation’s wealthiest and greediest capitalists. From the NYT:
Worried that lawmakers will allow taxes to rise for the wealthiest Americans beginning next year, financial firms are discussing whether to move up their bonus payouts from next year to this month.
At stake is a portion of the hefty annual payouts that are a familiar part of the compensation culture on Wall Street, as well as a juicy target of popular anger. If Congress does not extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest income levels, a typical worker who earns a $1 million bonus would pay $40,000 to $50,000 more in taxes next year than this year, depending on base salary.
Goldman Sachs is one of the companies discussing how to time bonus season, according to three people who have been briefed on the discussions. Pay consultants who work with major Wall Street companies say that just about every other large bank has also considered such a move in recent weeks.
With tax politics in Washington unpredictable, bank executives have spent months sketching out several options for their bonus plans, including the possibility of an earlier payout. Lawmakers have been trading accusations across a partisan divide, but after this weekend, it appears likely that a compromise will extend the tax cuts for all income levels.
Even so, the banks’ discussions about bonus timing underscore how focused the industry is on protecting every dollar of pay.
That’s rich. These are folks who manufacture nothing and whose collective scheming brought the nation — indeed, the world — to the brink of financial collapse. Yet, they have absolutely no sense of responsibility to the overall good.
And just how bad would it be if tax breaks for the filthy rich were allowed to expire? They’d still be paying less in taxes than they did under the Clinton administration, when the economy was healthy.
My, my, my. It helps you understand why the term “robber barons” had such meaning during the 19th century.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
421 comments Add your comment
quod erat demonstrandum
December 6th, 2010
11:09 am
Keep up the good fight!,
No one is calling for tax cuts – it is just an extension of the existing rates. Please read a little bit and understand what is happening. Every working person is going to get hit with a tax increase unless the Bush tax cuts are extended.
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:10 am
Georgian,
Let me help you aout a little. I have set up several Uni Trusts into which I divert a fair amount of earnings each year. By doing so, I provide myself with a steady stream of income while at the same time avoiding having to pay any capitol gains taxes.
You can do the same thing, which will allow you to keep more of your money and be able to bear a slight increase in your taxes if the they happen to re-set.
This might help you understand why I don’t really worry about the possibility of my taxes going up.
granny godzilla
December 6th, 2010
11:11 am
Bubba
Why did Bush give Obama the second half of TARP?
What were the differences in the projections of the cost to the taxpayers of TARP before and after that handover? What are the current projections of the cost of TARP and explain the reasons why.
Jack
December 6th, 2010
11:11 am
Groucho never met a woman he disliked. But in your case, he’d be puzzled as to what to do.
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:12 am
Mr. Right,
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that you had access to my balance sheets.
Tracy
December 6th, 2010
11:13 am
Lets seperate campaign rhetoric from reality here. We all know the Republicans aren’t going to cut spending. The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is how they spend the money. Let the GOP take the Senate and White House in 2012 and expect another spend, spend, spend spree. You can count on that.
AngryRedMarsWoman
December 6th, 2010
11:14 am
“How can any reasonable person expect to survive on that?”
I guess this sums up everything that bothers me about this whole tax debate. I am sick of hearing about who can afford what and the implication that it is “bad” to make more than “we” believe you need to live on. Should we all live in the same kind of house, drive the same kind of car, etc. so that everybody is living on exactly the same amount and nobody has anything that someone else does not? Do you hope for a raise every year? Sure you do. More than a COLA? Maybe more because you went back to school and/or received a promotion? Why? You were living just fine on what you made last year, you obviously don’t “need” any more than a small COLA to live and a raise would give you more than you need…you sinister little capitalist. I make good money, but I don’t live lavishly. A good bit of what I make goes into savings for my retirement – you see, I am working hard now so that I can enjoy a comfortable life later. So, is everything I save the “more than I need” part of my income? Who but I should be determining how much I need to live on? And what goes into the calculation? Cable TV, cell phone, etc? Are those needs or wants? I say wants, but I guess nobody should have any of those because we should only keep the amount of money we actually “need” to live…basic shelter, clothing and food. Growing up in the “rust belt” in a lower middle class blue collar family I had wealth envy too — but I decided to do all I could to join the “wealthy” by working hard and making my way up the ladder, not just sit back and whine and try to take what they had. Although my deductions get reduced because of my income level, I will still have enough to keep me under the dreaded “wealth line” for tax purposes (I am still likely to get caught in the AMT, but that is for another day) so I have no reason to complain other than because I have a firmly held belief that the current line of thought about the “wealthy” is dangerous.
p.s. Cindy – You need to make a better class of friends. All of the law firm partners I know make 7 figures. I am a lawyer myself, but I work in-house and make less than my friends who chose to be “Big Law partners”…I don’t begrudge them a penny.
Mr Right
December 6th, 2010
11:14 am
ByteMe
December 6th, 2010
11:08 am
Sounds to me like increasing taxes except for ending the wars.
granny godzilla
December 6th, 2010
11:15 am
Jack
and a gracious good morning to you too!
Keep up the good fight!
December 6th, 2010
11:16 am
QED…I understand completely what an extension of a law is. I also understand completely that ALL republican senators voted 100% not to extend those tax cuts for EVERYONE for the first $250,000 of income because they demand an extension of the tax cuts for any income above $250,000 and thus a bonus for billionaires and add $700 billion to the decifit with little benefit.
Mr Right
December 6th, 2010
11:16 am
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:12 am
It’s YOU that keeps saying you can afford to pay higher taxes!
Mr Awesome
December 6th, 2010
11:16 am
Why would Buffet care about income taxes folks. He does NOT pay them. His money makes his money. If wants to pay more taxes, I am sure the IRS would not return his check.
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:18 am
Angry,
No one is telling you how much you can make. I wouldn’t like it either. However, are and always will be a part of the game. Sometimes we benefit, sometimes we have to pony up just a little more. My argument is and always has been that I have the abilty to shield a lot of money, and that benefits me. However when it comes to the topic of paying taxes for the overall good of the nation, I have never had a problem with that.
Mr Right
December 6th, 2010
11:18 am
Keep up the good fight!
December 6th, 2010
11:16 am
How can it be a bonus when it’s their money to began with!
Richard
December 6th, 2010
11:19 am
Fletch said:
December 6th, 2010
10:35 am
But Cynthia, if I make $1,000,000 a year, and my taxes go up, I might have to pay $200,000 in taxes. That would only leave me $800,000 a year or $66,666.00 a month to live on.
Ok, I understand the obvious sarcasm there, but this comment illustrates how blatently inneffective the media/democrats are at explaining whats actually at stake.
Let’s say you make $350k per year. If the Bush tax cuts expire, your taxes go up by 3% on the 100k over 250k you made. In other words, your taxes go up $3,000. How many jobs would a small business owner be able to create with $3,000?
Let’s say you make $1,000,000 per year. Now your taxes go up by $21,000. At minimum wage, you could hire 1.5 people in theory.
Of course only 2 percent of America would be affected. If 2% of the country took every dime of those tax cuts and used it to only hire people (bonus points if you read that without laughing) you’d employ about 3% of the population at minimum wage.
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:19 am
Mr Right,
What’s your point? That I can afford to pay more taxes and should, or that you don’t want me to? Please clarify.
Mr Awesome
December 6th, 2010
11:20 am
Fletch, you are right, they are not saying how much they can make. Just how much they can keep.
dougmo2
December 6th, 2010
11:21 am
CT, what is WRONG with keeping more of the money I EARNED? The federal government DOES NOT EARN MY MONEY, THEY TAKE IT.
————————————————————————————————————-
I know several of those partners, and they can well stand to pay more.
CT, who are YOU to decide this? Besides writing horrible blogs,and cutting and pasting did you have time to go to some special school that determines who pays more taxes based on their incomes?
BlahBlahBlah
December 6th, 2010
11:22 am
“Yet, they have absolutely no sense of responsibility to the overall good.”
Maybe that’s because your chosen presidential candidate chose to continue the horrible “too big to fail” philosophy that Dubya followed.
They were basically told “you are too important to go out of business”, so why is anyone shocked that they would act like they are entitled to the world on a silver platter?
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:22 am
Richard,
I agree, and thank you for picking up on the sarcasm. Just as a point of interest, I pay my employees far more than minimum wage.
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
11:25 am
Well ByteMe,
In my opinion 35% would be $35 out of every $100, not every thousand.
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:26 am
Mr. Awesome,
Trust me, there are plenty of legal loopholes in the tax code that benefit me and anyone else in the 2% range. So much so, that it is almost laughable that anyone that in that group would even make the Bush tax cut extension an issue. the amount of money that the Government is asking for, pales in comparison to the amount of money that can be shielded if assets are allocated properly.
AngryRedMarsWoman
December 6th, 2010
11:26 am
“However when it comes to the topic of paying taxes for the overall good of the nation, I have never had a problem with that.”
I don’t either. As a matter of fact, if I truly believed that my “representatives” could pull their collective head out and run this country properly and pay down the debt, I would even be willing to pay an extra percentage of my income towards reducing the debt. But they cannot stop wasting the money I already pay, so I think I have a right to be ticked off at the concept of them taking even more from anyone (even the people who can “afford it”). And I am very disturbed by the tone that the debate has taken….this is not about us pulling together as a nation to take care of a problem, but rather it has mainly become about people spitting venom about one another for “being lazy” or “being greedy” and I really think that sucks (pardon my crassness). As I have said time and again on this board and others…the political class is just giddy because we have taken their bait and begun tearing at each other instead of turning our anger towards the real problem with this country…THEM!
Happy Monday to all.
Mr Right
December 6th, 2010
11:29 am
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:19 am
Mr Right,
What’s your point? That I can afford to pay more taxes and should, or that you don’t want me to? Please clarify.
My point is that if you think they should raise taxes and you say you can afford it go ahead and do it and stop trying to force everyone else to give the gov their money to waste!
ByteMe
December 6th, 2010
11:29 am
@Mr. Right: then you need to go back and think through the ramifications of both my recommendations as it relates to the general population and government costs and the ramifications of NOT doing the recommendations. If all you see is “tax cuts good, taxes bad”, then I can’t really help you gain some level of sanity.
Keep up the good fight!
December 6th, 2010
11:30 am
Right… All money is everyone’s to begin with. We pay taxes for government. We have a progressive tax system. We have a national debt. Its not “THEIR money”…Americans received services which have not been paid and its time to pay for the current services and the past services. So everyone needs to pay. Simple as that.
But if you are talking about “extending the Bush tax cuts” which is in reality an additional round of tax cut, and you do not want to use PAYGO then you must provide a rational basis. What has been voted down was a tax cut extention for everyone for the 1st $250,000. Why do those who earn more want an unfair additional bonus for themselves.
Carlosgvv
December 6th, 2010
11:31 am
I don’t worry about the wealthy having to pay more taxes because I know the Republican Party will fight tooth and nail to keep this from ever happening. There are not many things in America you can absolutely count on, but this is one of them.
Mr Right
December 6th, 2010
11:32 am
ByteMe
December 6th, 2010
11:29 am
Spoken as a true Lib!!
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
11:33 am
The truth is individuals who make more than 200,000 will be taxed more, as well as families making more than 250,000. While they “may” or “may not” be able to pay the extra is not the point. You are unfairly taxing one group of people for their success.
ByteMe
December 6th, 2010
11:33 am
@Mr. Right: and you’ve spoken just like an immature talking point. Blah. Come back when you get older and wiser.
Mr Right
December 6th, 2010
11:34 am
Right… All money is everyone’s to begin with. We pay taxes for government. We have a progressive tax system. We have a national debt. Its not “THEIR money”…Americans received services which have not been paid and its time to pay for the current services and the past services. So everyone needs to pay. Simple as that.
WOW!! Are we living in Cuba or the old USSR!
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:35 am
Mr Right,
I’m not trying to force anyone to pay more. In fact, if you read my previous posts, you will see that I explained one of the ways you can keep more of your money by using diversification and trusts. However, we are talking about the Federal tax rate. Which means that because I am allowed to take advantage of certain tax breaks on one side that greatly benefit me, I shouldnt be opposed to paying a little bit more on the other. As I said, if what I get to keep was measured against what the Government is asking me to give, the scales are heavily tipped in my favor.
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
11:36 am
All I know is I would rather the so called rich keep their money than have it go to do-nothings at the bottom of the barrel.
ByteMe
December 6th, 2010
11:36 am
@Georgian 11:25, not clear on what that is in response to. That the change is only $3 on every $100 above $250K? You know what they pay (at least in the published rates) now, right?
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:37 am
Georgian,
Trust me, the rich keep a great deal more than what is asked for.
ByteMe
December 6th, 2010
11:37 am
@Georgian @ 11:36: FINALLY! Someone on that side who admits the real argument is class warfare, but with those in the “haves” declaring war on everyone else.
Cekker
December 6th, 2010
11:37 am
OMG! Yet another bash the rich copy-and-paste from Tucker! How shockingly unoriginal.
travelingman141
December 6th, 2010
11:40 am
Once again the citizens of Libtardia show how much they know of how to govern and lead. Taxing the rich more or anything taxation will not reduce this deficit that both the Democrats and Republicans made in the first place.
I find it surprising that your sheep, I mean people; honestly believe these people that we elect to go to Washington care about you. HECK NO THEY DON’T… THEY ARE IN IT FOR THEMSELVES!!!! The only reason they want to increase taxes is to continue the growth of government and their power! When will you sheep (or sheeple – people that lean on the government to live off of) learn?
Now let’s see what Granny and Ct says. Probably nothing because they know that I’m right. However, if they do it will be some lame attempt…..
jconservative
December 6th, 2010
11:40 am
My problem is not with tax cuts or no tax cuts. My problem is with Republicans and democrats who talk about correcting the 30 year string of major deficits but then vote tax cuts without an offsetting cut in spending.
For every dollar of revenue reduction, spending must be reduced or the deficits will continue to rise.
Mr Right
December 6th, 2010
11:40 am
@Mr. Right: and you’ve spoken just like an immature talking point. Blah. Come back when you get older and wiser.
You have just confirmed my point!
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:44 am
Georgian and Mr Right,
Just to give you an idea of who you’re fighting for. I have a colleague who owns his own logistics and transportation business. Income wise, her brings down roughly $1,000,000 to 1,500,000 annully. However, he pays himself $7.25 per hour which is reported as TAXABLE income. That amounts to $13,920.00 per year, which makes him eligible for the EITC. Since the increase is set to apply to those that make over $200,000 annually, he will never take that hit.
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
11:44 am
Why should an individual be asked to give up their earnings to support someone completely who does nothing to deserve it.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 6th, 2010
11:45 am
It’s nice to see an economically illiterate liberal acknowledge (even if accidentally) that people respond to incentives, and that static analysis of tax changes is what idiots do.
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:46 am
Georgian,
why should you pay more in taxes because you aren’t able to hide your money as well as others?
Chuck
December 6th, 2010
11:46 am
You can raise taxes on the wealthy to 95% and it will still barely make a tiny, tiny dent in the National Debt. Both parties come clean with the american public about what really needs to be done to fix the economy and stop all the pandering. We have to make extreme cuts to the big three (Social Security, Medicare, and Military Spending) and until then raising taxes and stopping ear marks are meaningless. Lets stop all the window dressing and start dealing with the real problems.
Fletch
December 6th, 2010
11:47 am
Chuck,
Dealing with real problems doesn’t get one elected.
ByteMe
December 6th, 2010
11:48 am
@Mr. Right: Big yawn. I’m sure everything anyone says that you don’t agree with make them a “Lib” in your eyes. Poor you. I guess I shouldn’t feel bad for you, though.
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
11:48 am
Fletch,
His business will take that hit.
Good Grief
December 6th, 2010
11:48 am
I’ve got an idea. Let’s just allow the federal government to take all of the income and wealth and this country and then distribute it as they see fit. Who cares if it completely destroys work ethic? Then it will be fair.
C’mon, CT. We’ve been over this. The last round of figures show that the top 5% of wage earners paid nearly 60% of all federal income taxes. How much more should they give? Should we go to a Euro-Socialist model where everything over $100,000 a year is taxed 100%? I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution does not authorize the government to determine who gets paid what amount in the private sector.
Here’s a better idea: Why don’t these jack-wagons in Congress and on the President’s vaunted commissions come up with ways to cut spending? Instead, they come out and say that we should slow the growth of spending and raise taxes. That’s a line of BS if ever there was one.
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
11:49 am
Do you realize how much of our budget goes to Medicare, and other programs.