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
C Push
December 6th, 2010
1:23 pm
First of all, they aren’t being asked to make any sacrifice. The Tucker’s of this world want the government to take from them money that they earned. Nobody is asking them anything. We are asked to believe that being successful means we are not entitled to what we earn. That somehow Ms. Tucker is entitled to hand out my money more than I am.
If you demand that I have to pay a higher percent of my salary in taxes and receive fewer benefits; maybe you should mandate that all these unfortunate poor people who are exempt from paying any taxes cut my yard, wash my dog, paint my house, or whatever…Just to make it fair, and to show maybe just a little bit of gratitude for the free ride they are getting.
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
1:23 pm
Some ppl are stupid,
Bailouts- If Bush is alone responsible for the bailouts, why was Obama just a few weeks ago flaunting HIS ADMIN’s big success in bailing out GM and Chrysler? Bush kept the housing market and banks from tanking, Obama took it a step farther and just starting tossing money to whomever he deemed needed it.
Stimulus- 1/3 was tax cuts? Oh the ones we didnt know about cause they didnt tell us? Those tax cuts? I don’t see where any taxes went down or were taken away. I know some actually went up, but I know of no REAL tax cuts. Making work pay didnt equate to any tax cut. Many states actually didnot ask for the stimulus and many even asked for it not to be sent, yet were threatened of the consequences of doing so. When a state foolishly runs themselves into debt (California) should Georgia have to foot that bill?
Overspending- Overfunding food stamps, Medicaid, approving stimulus and bail outs when you know you can not pay for it.
RGB
December 6th, 2010
1:24 pm
With the top 10% of federal tax filers carrying 70% of the load, you should be thankful for people who prosper. Unfortunately you aren’t.
I would say that constitutes a “sense of responsibility to the overall good.” But having said that, who are you to assign such a responsibility?
Government is the greatest destroyer of wealth.
Albeit
December 6th, 2010
1:24 pm
Democratic Party Dictionary: Wealthy, adj: Someone with a job.
TINSTAAFL
December 6th, 2010
1:27 pm
“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. ”
And the entire premise of your article is blown by the first sentence. They are not being ‘asked’ to contribute more of their earned money. They are being ordered by the government, with the implicit force of a gun, to surrender their property so that the government can respend and distribute it as it pleases. Don’t dress up what the government is trying to do. You can’t put lipstick on a pig.
And they don’t owe the nation anything. Anybody with money has traded value for value to get where they are. Nobody forces to buy anything you don’t want… that is, except for the Obama administration.
“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.”
Do you have any idea how much a rich person’s work benefits everybody below them? How much economic good their evil capital investments have created by strategically loaning money to, what they consider, the most promising companies? Please. Put away this stupid class warfare demogogueary that you’re so prone to use lately.
David
December 6th, 2010
1:27 pm
Wow CT, you’re quite a generous person. And wise, as well. I’m glad to see that you know how to spend other people’s money better than they do.
If there is some magical limit at which “rich” becomes “filthy rich”, this implies that making money has at it’s root some sort of immorality. Which further implies that all of us are immoral in making an income, it’s just that some of us are more immoral than others…
Say it Aint so
December 6th, 2010
1:29 pm
I have no problem with paying more taxes as long as the refunds stop for the hundreds of thousands of people out there who claim their 6 kids as low income and then get a so called tax refund of 10K when they paid not a single penny in taxes. Thats not a tax refund, thats a government handout at my expense.
If I am to pay more then I expect it to be for military, border patrol and security, not for generational welfare payments to the uneducated, under achievers who want to party all night and sleep all day at my expense. When you get rid of the dead wood then give me a call. I will then be willing to give away what I spend 80-90 hours per week working to make.
Questions anyone?
Libertarian
December 6th, 2010
1:30 pm
Cynthia,
The only ones who are “robbing” anyone…are all the moochers at the bottom who get back more than they paid in. They still use government services as much (usually more) than the ones in the top two bracket who bear all the tax burden.
The AJC story last week about people standing in line for help with their heating bills…anyone else notice how many in the line (in the picture posted on AJC) were on their cell phones?? So, you get a cell phone, but my tax money is paying for your heat?? The moocher class is sucking us dry!
Bob
December 6th, 2010
1:30 pm
Hostage 10:31, we have had high unemployment for two years, did that grow us out of recession ?
Shawny
December 6th, 2010
1:33 pm
To fix it, take away all deductions and tax based on income alone.
Lowering the rate per tier, of course. If the company is US based, tax based on all income, not just what is raised here. No need for an IRS.
Why is that so hard?
George W
December 6th, 2010
1:37 pm
Great idea. Tax those who actually create jobs! More overhead means less money to afford employees. When will you guys get that!?!?!?
B Cosby
December 6th, 2010
1:38 pm
Wow, CT you sure woke the page 4 crowd. I think all should be banned because they disagree with you.
Tychus Findlay
December 6th, 2010
1:38 pm
TINSTAAFL hits the nail on the head. Being ‘asked’ is akin to charity, you’d be hard pressed to find a person making north of $250K a year that isn’t willing to be a little more charitable.
The fear and resentment stems from the fact that thegovernment is using the barrel of the gun to TAKE money from the highest income earners so that it can spend it how it sees fit.
When you give charity, you decide how it’s spent, when the government takes money, it decides how its spent.
Get it?
Tychus Findlay
December 6th, 2010
1:40 pm
Oh, and Cynthia, put down your copy of The Jungle and pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Those evil corporate monsters that provide you a job and the opportunity to air your tired opinion generally subscribe to the latter.
mystified
December 6th, 2010
1:42 pm
When Bush enacted these tax cuts…Federal revenues increased $785 billion. That’s 40% The tax cuts worked. A lower tax rate, increased the total amount of tax revenue generated. Truth hurts.
The problem is Bush allowed Congress to grow the size of government past the increase in revenue the tax cuts generated while fighting two unfunded war. It seems logical that letting the tax cuts expire on anywone would reverse the effects of that stimulus. The million dollar question is “how can we pay for this oversized government?”. “How will increasing the taxes affect overall tax revenues?”.
I say we take a sample of rich democrats….Raise their taxes for two years. If the amount of tax revenue they generate increases, then maybe we should consider it.
Chuck
December 6th, 2010
1:43 pm
Cut social secutiy, medicare, medicade, military spending by 25% to 35% across the boad. Do away with HUD, Dept. of Education, Dept of Land Management, Dept. of Homeland Security, NEA, etc… Privatize the Post Office, TSA, etc… and then we will have taken our fist small step on the way to fiscal well being. No more bail outs or subsidies, either a company can survive or it dies a natural death. These tax cuts/increases are small potatos, do not make a difference in the big picture.
kayaker 71
December 6th, 2010
1:44 pm
CT,
What makes you and all of the other whining liberals on this blog think that they have the right to take from one person and give to another? Those evil rich already pay more than their fair share of taxes. You can only soak them so much. We already work until mid April to foot the bill for the wildest spending in history and you want us to sacrifice more of what we have to pay for the huge spending excesses fostered by a group of people who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. It’s OK for our Congress and our President to spend at will but then they have to have a scapegoat to pay for it and it’s always the evil rich who bear the burden. It’s never the fault of the people who run up the bills but only those who refuse to pay for someone else’s excesses. I’m sick and tired of paying other people’s bills. Let them pay their own.
Frank
December 6th, 2010
1:46 pm
“…that they may be asked to make a small financial sacrifice to restore fiscal health to the nation that has GIVEN them so much.”
Earned Cynthia, not given. I know somewhere in your skull there used to be a brain. AJC, what are you waiting for. Can Cynthia. Her audience can’t even read, much less afford a paper.
Greg
December 6th, 2010
1:48 pm
Ms. Tucker,
When has a tax cut ever created a deficit?
OMG! What if the government had to cut spending? Oh, the horror!
Anyone who believes we have a tax problem is drinking the Kool-Aid.
MC
December 6th, 2010
1:49 pm
How can the largest tax cuts in our history produce a net loss of 9 million jobs. And still people drink the job creation kool-aid. And why are profits up and payrolls continue to shrink? I would really like to hear a rational reason for that fact. Fox News talking points just don’t cut it.
John
December 6th, 2010
1:50 pm
CT – why should the rich have to pay more? So far, nobody has (honestly) answered that question. I know the answer. Are you willing to admit that:
1) Blacks, who can no longer cling to racism following Obama’s election, need something else to justify their hand-outs, or
2) Media elite, such as yourself, are totally incapable of bringing to the forefront for discussion ANYTHING other than the gov’t nanny-state and entitlements?
I find it disingenuous if not sad that this is what American journalism has become. I find it particularly interesting that people such as yourself, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman and Frank Rich write ad nauseuum about Sarah Palin, George Bush, and all the other easy targets weekly, yet none of you spend 5 minutes exploring why after generations of affirmative action, blacks still vote as a block for Dems and increasingly have children out of wedlock. There are generations of blacks who know nothing other than foodstamps, drugs and crime. Why don’t “opine” about that instead of whining about taking even more money from the so-call rich? Why don’t you list the great advancements blacks have made as they vote lockstep with Dems for decades? I believe you don’t write about these things because you know the truth. Blacks have actually been held back by the Dems. Look at the blacks who have become Repubs. They’re all successful. Why is that, CT?
If you want to have an “honest” discussion in the country, let’s start right here and right now. I’ll begin. This is a capitalistic republic where anyone can be anything, free from the the fear of gov’t control and plunder. This is not France. Why in the world should someone who earns $500,000/year pay a hire percenage in taxes than someone making $50,000/year? Why should someone who worked their entire life have to give up to 50% of their AFTER-tax savings back to the gov’t upon their death. The gov’t will simply redistribute it to someone who didn’t earn it. This is not fair. It’s un-American. Minimum safety-net for the truly needy – yes. Money for the able-bodied – No!
Rickster
December 6th, 2010
1:50 pm
Warren Buffet thinks the rich need to pay more taxes? There’s nothing stopping him from cutting a big fat check to the government. Instead, he give billions to Bill Gates’ foundation, and (likely) takes a big tax deduction for doing so.
Hypocritical? Could be!
B Cosby
December 6th, 2010
1:50 pm
By the way, it was Bush’s fault when gas got over $2 a gallon. Is it Obama’s fault now that gas is almost $3 a gallon?
Gordon
December 6th, 2010
1:50 pm
There should be NO tax increases until the government can show that it can exercise spending restraint. We’ve raised taxes before, and spending went up even faster. Cut expenses first, then raise taxes.
Sorry some of you have so much trouble dealing with the fact that other people make more money than you do. It sure must be a sad way to live.
Same old same old
December 6th, 2010
1:51 pm
So marginal tax rates may well go up 4.6% on the highest bracket and some people are engaged in good old tax planning. Gosh, there’s a story (that’s rich). Just like people are deciding whether to hold off on charitable contributions (the tax savings is greater next year than this year, etc.). If you are faced with higher expenses (taxes), you accelerate income to now (have your first check in January paid in December, etc.) and attempt to recognize more expenses later.
Gosh, there is so much sinister in all that it is amazing.
Please, spare us the garbage about “rich” people having received so much from this country that it is their obligation to pay more taxes (they already pay most of the taxes now, news alert). You are going to tell me that if an immigrant comes to this country and creates a business and makes a lot of money that the country has “given” him something? The income tax paying people (even those paying far lower rates) pay for the 10s of millions in this country who pay no taxes yet consume taxpayer services. You can’t tax the 1% of the people who already pay half the taxes in the country all day and expect them to not change their behavior (we’ve seen how socialism and communism worked out for the standard of living of people in those countries, right)?
Chuck
December 6th, 2010
1:51 pm
Oh yeah, end “The war on drugs” it has been totally ineffective and wastes billions of dollars every year. If some idiot wants to “shoot smack or meth” all day, as long as he doesn’t break the law to get the money for it, WHO CARES! Darwinism will take care of him soon enough.
Kamchak
December 6th, 2010
1:53 pm
…pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
Read it back in the 70s when I was seventeen.
Then I aged a year and realized that the author was a narcissistic sociopath.
As a romance novel, it’s not too shabby.
But as a basis for an economic model…
MC
December 6th, 2010
1:54 pm
I’m sick of bailing out Goldman-Sachs and others of their ilk too. Kayaker71. Why do morons like you never seem to point your grubby little fingers at the real culprits?
Greg
December 6th, 2010
1:59 pm
Taking the money from the rich to give to someone else is analogous to…
Taking copy and pasting a story from another newspaper and giving it to yourself. Ah, that’s how you “earn” a Pulitzer.
reason
December 6th, 2010
2:00 pm
I studied hard college and in law school. I work over 70 hours a week… my hard work is reflected in my paycheck. I give to charity and I also share my bonuses with my employees. Now it is up to the government to determine how much of my salary/bonus I am to receive???? I think I speak for the rest of the $250k a year “millionaires”… these tax INCREASES are Bull Caca!!!!!
Kamchak's gerbil
December 6th, 2010
2:01 pm
John – could not have said it any better.
CT – should people that pay a higher percentage in taxes also have their votes count proportionally more in elections. I mean – if they pay more for services shouldn’t they have more of a say in how the money is spent!!!!!
Yo
December 6th, 2010
2:02 pm
Way to push class warfare
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
2:03 pm
Kam,
Here’s your sign….
MC
December 6th, 2010
2:04 pm
So as soon as a deal is cut to leave your present tax rate intact you’ll be hanging out your help wanted sign, huh reason?
kayaker 71
December 6th, 2010
2:08 pm
MC,
“Morons like me?”. Goldman Sacs, AIG, GM….. all of them wouldn’t make a drop in the bucket to the bills we have accumulated for supporting 40M or so people who think that it is their right to have someone else pay their bills. Ever wonder how much money we have poured down that hole in the ground to support these “poor unfortunate” Americans (and some not so American) since 1964? Who is the moron here, MC? I think even you might be able to figure that one out.
C from Marietta
December 6th, 2010
2:09 pm
Fletch does not own any business.
RxDawg
December 6th, 2010
2:10 pm
“OMG! What if the wealthy have to pay more . . .”
Then they’ll move to another country taking their money with them. Or they will be less motivated to work hard, benefit society, and gasp! create more buisness and jobs for America.
Don’t be dumb and think differently.
For god’s sakes… a flat tax. Is it really that hard? Whatever the magic % number is, EVERYONE pays it no exceptions, no exemptions. You own a house? Good for you, pay up. You have 20 kids? How nice, fork it over. Your “poor”. Ok, you still pay because everyone else has to.
barking frog
December 6th, 2010
2:10 pm
Chuck
December 6th, 2010
1:51 pm
———————————-
The war on drugs was over as when the drugs surrendered.
Steven Q. Stanley
December 6th, 2010
2:13 pm
Shouldn’t we all pay more since we all voted for this? It’s immoral for 98% of the country to vote for more spending and tell only 5% of the country they have to pay for it.
barking frog
December 6th, 2010
2:14 pm
RxDawg
December 6th, 2010
2:10 pm
For god’s sakes… a flat tax
————————————
I will support a flat tax that is like a flat tire, only
flat on the bottom.
Browncoat
December 6th, 2010
2:14 pm
CT, I guess the past election put you in a bad mood. Frankly the tone of your “opinion” is unprofessional, and if I were the owner of the paper, you would be fired. For example, how can you assume that these “rich” people produce nothing and calling them the filthy rich is uncalled for.
WOW. Your biases are clearly showing through.
Tyler
December 6th, 2010
2:15 pm
One thing you’ll never get people like Cynthia McKinney to admit, is how much they think is enough to take. As far as she’s concerned, the “rich” can always afford to pay more.
Steven Q. Stanley
December 6th, 2010
2:15 pm
Question: Who here thinks it is OK to take a segment of society, make wide sweeping generalities about that group, apply it to everyone within that group, and then pass legislation that treats that group differently. That is what Cynthia just did here and I hope the powers that be at the AJC take note.
Koz
December 6th, 2010
2:16 pm
The US doesn’t have a revenue problem. No one needs to pay more in taxes. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. Plain and simple.
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
2:16 pm
C from Marietta,
This is what I suspect, but who am I to judge Fletch?
brad
December 6th, 2010
2:19 pm
I say go ahead and raise the tax on the top tier. Then wait for the next round of class warfare to begin. Go higher still on the top tier? Confiscate their bank accounts? The uncertainty like it or not is the killer – if we know it will go up fine – if we know it will go down fine. But dragging this out again takes focus off the real issues. The real issue is spending and the fact that nothing is being done about it.
Metro Coach
December 6th, 2010
2:19 pm
Only in a liberal’s mind is confiscating less of someone else’s money considered giving that person something. What a bunch of screwballs.
MC
December 6th, 2010
2:20 pm
How much money have we poured down that that hole in the ground to fight unnecessary wars and spent on useless unneeded weapons systems Kayker71? How much money is wasted on the biggest boondoggle in U.S. history, the Department of Homeland Security? And I ask this as a West Point grad and retired flag grade military officer. And then tell me how much money is literally thrown out the window fighting a “war on drugs” (LMAO) that can’t possibly be won? My problem with this whole thing is that most of you can’t see the forest for the trees when it comes to the single most effective cuts that can be made here. Why does the United States unilaterally spend more than 250% more than the rest of of the word combined on such as the above and get so damn little for the money?
Georgian
December 6th, 2010
2:20 pm
The govt wants to tax the rich so they can spend more. Its that simple.
Kamchak
December 6th, 2010
2:22 pm
One thing you’ll never get people like Cynthia McKinney to admit…
Our hostess’ name is Cynthia Tucker, sport.