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.

421 comments Add your comment

Rich kid

December 6th, 2010
3:04 pm

It is always the poor people who complain about the rich. But i bet if they had the chance to make a lot of money they too would not want to pay higher taxes. People who are poor are that way for a reason, and it is not because of rich people.

MC

December 6th, 2010
3:05 pm

You answered nothing Browncoat.

Mid GA Retiree

December 6th, 2010
3:07 pm

Please define “the rich” or “the wealthy”.

RamblinWreck

December 6th, 2010
3:07 pm

Cynthia,
It’s easy for you to say that the rich should give up another portion of their hard earned and well deserved money, but that is because it is not your money. Let me remind you of the fact that the people making the higher amounts of money are the one’s employing people. By giving the employer less money, then you have less jobs. Genius idea Cynthia. Your are still in your liberal bubble and even after this past election you still don’t get the fact that Americans are through with wasteful spending.

Browncoat

December 6th, 2010
3:07 pm

Hahahahaha, MC, of course I did.

Browncoat

December 6th, 2010
3:08 pm

Oh well, gotta get back to being filthy…bye

James

December 6th, 2010
3:08 pm

CT is the ultimate capitalist and “robber baron”- cudos to anyone that can spew last weeks news and get folks to hide behind blog names and start hating other blog names. really kind of silly if you think about it.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
3:09 pm

Really it is simple Econ 101.

Econ 101=Phlogiston Economics

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

did you mean along the same lines as those who were ‘conned’ into buying “Dreams from my Father” and “The Audacity of Hope?”

Of course–but I imagine that a great number of those sales are/will be required reading for history students.

Or is a person only ‘conned’ into buying books by authors that are conservative?

Good heavens no.

I own four Ayn Rand books.

Libertarian

December 6th, 2010
3:10 pm

Lane and MC…

Liberals are super concerned about Gitmo detainees…I think there are under 200 of them…so who cares? Liberals are super concerned about Gays serving openly in the military…according the Washington Post there is an estimated 60,000 GLBT’s serving in the military…but that’s such a small number, who cares about their rights? Your logic is flawed. Wrong is wrong. Taking more from the people who already pay the majority of taxes is just wrong…especially when there are tons of people who actually pay NOTHING and get money back in the form of tax credits.

AngryRedMarsWoman

December 6th, 2010
3:11 pm

OMG! What if the wealthy have to pay more . . .and what if everyone had to pay at least one dollar in federal income tax and nobody was allowed to receive a tax refund from the government in an amount greater than that which they paid in federal income tax withholdings during the course of the year (minus the $1 that everyone has to pay)…and what if your deductions, itemized or standard, could never be more than X% (sorry, I haven’t had time yet to calculate what a reasonable X value is) of your total earned income (from all sources) was during the taxable year? Just asking.

Don Edwards

December 6th, 2010
3:11 pm

No you didn’t Browncoat. He came with real numbers and real results. You came with nothing but a cute little rhetorical comment not backed up by any real logic or hard numbers. Show me one economist that has produced any equation that would back up your sheer supposition. Show us just one if you can Browncoat. If not you’re just dodging the fact that the numbers don’t lie.

cosby

December 6th, 2010
3:13 pm

Yawn, class warfare spouted by the administration. How about politicising the tax code to buy votes, which is what is happening along with dividing this country even more than it is. Even good old Charlie did not understand the code. Lets scrap the 16th amendment and get a Fair Tax, so of you buy more, you pay more taxes and we would not have the politics around who pays taxes. CT, you mention the good old boys at Goldman…but remember, Obama chose to let them live while he killed off Lehman Brothers…let the government choose the winners and loosers. Once again CT, when are you going to quit working for that evil rich Cox family??

barking frog

December 6th, 2010
3:14 pm

Mid GA Retiree

December 6th, 2010
3:07 pm
Please define “the rich” or “the wealthy”.
———————————————-
They are those who are not poor.

Troof

December 6th, 2010
3:15 pm

Glenn Beck wrote a book about trying to argue with people like Browncoat.

G'Vegas Dawg

December 6th, 2010
3:16 pm

Only a raging liberal fool would have the gaul to say that the people who actually got off of their butts and EARNED a living are the ones who are “bringing the world to the edge of financial collapse”. Why does everyone continue to ignore the big orange elephant in the room? What if, just what if, the “undocument workers” were documented? What if the same ones that use the system were made to pay into it? I’ll borrow CT’s words here – “Oh the horror!”

kayaker 71

December 6th, 2010
3:20 pm

MC,

After spending 34 yrs on active duty as a surgeon in the US Army, I too was able to see money spent needlessly. I would think that that might make me less of a moron and more of a realist. We both have seen needless waste during our service years. Fighting wars might qualify but I am not so sure. We were speaking of bailing out companies like Goldman, AIG, etc. and the vast amounts of money that has been spent on the “less fortunate” in our society. I still maintain that that is peanuts compared to the money that has been spent trying to get a segment of our society to get off of their backsides and get a job. I am tired of paying their bills, MC, sick and tired to having a segment of our society with their hands out demanding to be taken care of. And then those who have worked hard for what they have are expected by people like you, to take care of them, regardless of the circumstances. I am surprised that someone with your background would feel that way. Thought we were turning out flag officers with a little more common sense.

Lane

December 6th, 2010
3:22 pm

Libertarian–It’s not about “only 6000″ Georgians’ tax rate. It’s about 100% of Georgians supporting the increase in the deficit. To use your argument, we would all need to pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit—in order to be “fair.” I’m not making a political argument, I’m just doing the math.

Erskine

December 6th, 2010
3:24 pm

Hey Cynthia, I don’t see you donating anything. In What class do you consider yourself? This just bugs me. Everyone that works for their money legally deserves the same breaks. This “the good for everybody” is BS and nothing else. People need to get some ambition and not sit around a draw checks off Daddy Bama.

Suckers

December 6th, 2010
3:25 pm

Why don’t we just gang-press the poor into military service? Most of them are already proficient at wielding guns, and hey, if they get killed, less tax burden on the State.

What Important

December 6th, 2010
3:26 pm

And the vast amounts paid out in entitlements have nothing to do with the shape the country is in?

Chris D.

December 6th, 2010
3:27 pm

Ms. Tucker..It is those “Filthy rich” as you call them that pay for your livelihood. How about toning down the retoric… I am sure you make at least 5-fold what I do each year…To me if I was a wealth-hater like you…YOU would be the filthy rich.

Phil

December 6th, 2010
3:28 pm

I’m a taxpayer who happens to be in the next to the highest marginal tax bracket and will be effected by O’bama’s tax increase plan, as both my wife and I have small businesses that happen to employ approximately 25 people. It seems that in all my readings of brilliant liberal editorials like CT that no matter what amount of taxes I pay, I am never paying enough (or to put it into liberal words “paying my fair share”). It’s ironic that in my supposed lack of paying my fair share, I have accumulated a nearly $100,000 in income taxes debt annually. It’s also a bit ironic that those that get a proverbial pass on the “not paying their fair share” tag are the 47% percent of the total income tax filers who have NO tax obligation. And most of those happen to receive a tax refund that exceeds any tax burden due to earned income tax credits, refundable child tax credits, education tax credits, etc, etc.

Tucker, My questions are since I have a hard time understanding the liberal mentality:

1) Would I be better off closing both businesses and unfortunately laying off the 25 employees so I can join the ranks of those having NO income tax obligation AND that so happen to be a part of the “paying their fair share crowd”? It seems as if that’s the only way I can avoid the “not paying my fair share” quandry.

2) And at what rate will I mysterically join the ranks of the paying my fair share? Is it 100% of the income I earn? Do I need to send the government a $200,000 check annually, instead of the $100,000 I send now? When will “my fair share” ever be paid? This issue is troubling for me as I don’t like to be in debt and I certainly don’t want to shortchange the government as I have never received one nickle of government assistance…ever.

War Eagle

December 6th, 2010
3:29 pm

Redistrubution of THE WEALTH is Socialism, read Marxist manuscripts, All radicals think the same, if their is a problem…GO TO THE GOVERNMENT, THEY WILL FIX IT….
You need a nap Granny

Libby

December 6th, 2010
3:29 pm

If you think the wealthy won’t find loopholes or leave the country you are unable to think.

Guess we know they don’t pay you propagandists much!

Chris D.

December 6th, 2010
3:32 pm

LOOVE Phil’s response…Too bad it appears Ms. Tucker doesn’t have the cajones to repsond to him?

Lane

December 6th, 2010
3:33 pm

Is there anyone who’s responded to this editorial actually have a adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000 per year which they pay on their personal income tax? I doubt it because the statistics just don’t support it. I’m guessing 50% of all those 300,000 “highest earners” live in California or New York or Massachusetts or Florida. If there are 6000 adjusted gross income claimers in Georgia (using the IRS actual stats), the odds of even one of them responding to Cynthia Tucker’s editorial is damn near Zero.

Yet, we are all going to have to help “pay for” (taxes) the increased deficit the Bush Tax cut extension will create.

Smokewagon

December 6th, 2010
3:34 pm

As a working stiff worried about maintaining jobs in our economy I am definitely against tax increases for anyone including myself but I would consider a one time lump sum payment against the deficit. If we pull together as working Americans I think we can pull out of this mess but I am not in anyway going to support a higher tax or the constant overspending on entitlements that is going on now.

Jim

December 6th, 2010
3:34 pm

This whole debate is about power – not the rich vs. the middle vs. the poor. But the politicians who want to keep their power and perks – at the expense of us the people – something that Ms. Tucker plays right into. For those who have never studied constitution law, the U.S. constitution as written or intended, DOES NOT permit the government to play Robin Hood (weatlh redistribution). I ask those who live off people like me (the 50% or so taxpayers who pay for you to stay home and watch ESPN, Judge Judy, etc.), since when is it unfair for someone who has made the right choices and worked hard to be able to keep their property (for those goverment educated money is property) and have to support a non-family member by force of the government? If you want a government run nanny state to take care of you, how about move to Cuba or Venezuela.

Eddie Meat Cleaver Weaver

December 6th, 2010
3:35 pm

Cyndi – please put a photocopy of your volunteer check to the IRS in your next column. We’re all waiting to see how much extra you want to part with. Maybe you can show us the way. Otherwise please SHUT UP.

Bubbica

December 6th, 2010
3:36 pm

How much taxes does the 3 generation welfare queens pay?

kayaker 71

December 6th, 2010
3:37 pm

Lane,

Why not “pay for” the increased deficit by cutting spending? Then those who are entitled to keep their money because they earned it would be happy, the govt would not have to operate under such a cloud of need and Bozo could concentrate on securing our borders, finding jobs for those in need and fixing this horrendous tax code.

American

December 6th, 2010
3:37 pm

Sure the “rich” could pay more, but so could the large percentage of people who do not pay and do receive government assistance.

G'Vegas Dawg

December 6th, 2010
3:37 pm

Lane – you don’t have to live in Ga in order to respond to CT’s BLOG. You see this here internet goes all over the place. It’s really neat, you should ask your friend Al Gore about it.
Chris D – No, she doesn’t respond to anything. All she does is spew this crap and the AJC gets $ everytime one of us idiots looks at this junk and gets fired up.

My fair share

December 6th, 2010
3:38 pm

Granny:

Enjoy that cost of living social security raise you’re getting for the 2nd year in a row. NOT! Why should the responsible, wealthy folks of this country pay for downbeaten, welfare grubbers who don’t want to do anything for themselves except live off the government. Heck, I figure my share of taxes supports a welfare witch mother, and her eight illegitimate children by eight different deadbeat fathers here in Atlanta alone. These people work harder to find ways to take from the government when they could be looking for work.

Fair Tax is where it’s at. Equal taxes for what you earn by percentages.

BTW, my household does not make 250K a year.

NA

December 6th, 2010
3:39 pm

Cynthia is very good at class warefare.
She likes to antagonize people and misrepresent things.
She could make a good politician, maybe take Hank Johnson’s place.

Everyone says tax the rich. Rich has become the word used for hard working , highly successful people, who not only take care of theirselves but 80% of this country and God knows we do not want that kind of people in the economy. Shoot these people or banish them then the 80% of the remaining people will have no one to bash, no one to take care of them or pull the load for them. They will be destitute, starving, uncared for and it seems this is what everyone wants???
The fair share everyone talks about is not even fair.
The higher income people pay the highest percentage—– so they are penalized for doing well ——– does not sound so fair.
The higher income people pay the mostt dollars——– why not force those that do not care or try to work to generate the same tax money..
The higher income seem to get a bad rap. I thought America was the land of opportunity and freedom?
But Cynthia and others would rather beat the bread winner, chastise them for success, imprision them for their efforts, and eradicate them to make the non workers feel better temporairly.. What a load of crap.
It seems the media and the congress are afraid of the FAIR TAX———– because it is FAIR and the people screaming it is not fair have NO DESIRE for it to be FAIR.

Fleet

December 6th, 2010
3:41 pm

Cynthia Tucker OMG!

” ……. to the nation that has given them so much” . Give me a break ! They majority of the successful people in this country did it IN SPITE of having to put up with the BS of the government and nation. They don’t owe you or anybody squat ….. so why would they willing take their success and give it to the lazy, parasite crack bimbos that do nothing but crank out more of the same ?

Moonpie Wilson

December 6th, 2010
3:43 pm

Yep, without robber barrons like Andrew Carnegie and Henry Flagler we’d all be better off. Generations of steel workers could have moved on to Alaska to clean salmon for less than minimum wage, and we’d still be hacking our way through the Florida sawgrass towards Miami. But, we’d all be equally poor, which after all, is Cyndi’s Utopian Dream.

ButtHead

December 6th, 2010
3:45 pm

The dimacrats are a one trick pony, tax them more and spend more, a losing combination…. How about spend less did that ever cross a liberal mind?

Kanchak, so because it has not gotten out of committee we should just give up? Must be liberal thinking…

G'Vegas Dawg

December 6th, 2010
3:47 pm

Moonpie couldn’t have written that by himself….

David

December 6th, 2010
3:48 pm

Ms Tucker has shown once again how little she knows and makes me rack my brain trying to figure out how she keeps her job. OMG! What if those lousy rich had to pay more? Are you kidding me? Aside from the fact that it’s their money and if someone wants to take more of my money, or your money you have every right to question that and protest that it is really simple. The left believes that people do not change their lifestyle just becuase of higher taxes. The reality is that people do change what they do. Wall Street types with smaller bonus money would spend less which would result in other buisness getting less income and budgets failling short (think NY City). However the real victims of taxing the rich are small buisness owners who file their earning as income tax. Since they will have to pay higher taxes they will have less money to expand their buisnesses and hire more people, in addition they will not have incentive to grow their buisness becuase they would be forced to work harder and earn less in doing so. Tax hikes are counter productive. Why should any of this matter to Ms. Tucker anyway since all she really cares about is using the power of the Government to take from one group of people and give to another. All for a good cause I’m sure.

Chris D.

December 6th, 2010
3:49 pm

I missed the memo from Webster’s Dictionary where the word “RICH” is now spelled “FILTHYRICH”.

Steve

December 6th, 2010
3:50 pm

“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.”

This sounds like our democratic congress

David S

December 6th, 2010
3:52 pm

Restore the fiscal health of the nation??? What are you smoking? All the rich are being asked to do is shovel more money down the rathole of federal spending. This is not a robbery that will pay off the trillions of current debt or the hundreds of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilites. The congress has not cut spending, privatized and ended Social Security, ended the Medicare drug benefit, ended Medicare, brought the troops home, closed and sold all of our hundreds of overseas bases, closed the departments of education, energy, argriculture, FDA, HHS, DEA, etc. ended the war on drugs, ended the war on poverty, ended the war on free speech, or any of the other responsible things that MUST be done if we are ever to end up fiscally sound again. So really what is the point of asking the folks who already pay WAY more of the income tax burden than anyone else in the country to pay even more???

You hate success. Face it. As a libertarian presidential candidate once said, Democrats are always afraid someone is making too much money and republicans are always afraid that someone is having too much fun.

Time for government and its supporters to go. It has not served us well. A peaceful dismantling through lack of support is required.

Fleet

December 6th, 2010
3:53 pm

AJC …. you need to pull the plug on her.

Ms. Tucker has obviously flat-lined and should be officially declared brain dead ………

CYNT U MUST KEEP UR JOB

December 6th, 2010
3:58 pm

THE POOR DUMB REDNECK GOP SUPPORTERS WILL BE MAD BECAUSE THE RICH WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE!

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
3:58 pm

C from Marietta and Georgian,

Sorry guys, I was off for a while. Looks like you two had more questions. I guess I’d be curious as to how you draw such a large conclusion about someone you neither know nor have ever met. So please enlighten me as to how you came to your determination?

Contractor

December 6th, 2010
3:59 pm

Tucker,

You are something else, I tell you, and so are your followers. Answer this… Why is it that the wealthy American’s responsibility to cover a country that has let entitlements, bad loans, and government spending go awry? I want to completely understand why you think that taxing the rich MORE than they already are is a fair shake of things? So many younger kids and some adults in this country are willing to accept government handouts instead of making an honest living that it has become a culture in itself that is plaguing this country. So explain why the ones that decided to do something successful with their lives are the ones that have to make up for those that took the total opposite path and rely on others to give them another day of survival? Just goes to your character that you are willing to basically steal from another human being to cover your short comings and being irresponsible. You must have a head like a coconut, just thick and can’t anyone get useful information through it. You always blab your mouth about this country being free and this and that, but yet you want to take what people have worked hard for, and give it to those that haven’t done anything to help their selves. Take your pity for the sorry ones elsewhere, cause those of us that are trying to make something of ourselves want nothing to do with it or you. Or do you suggest I quit work, start collecting entitlements and watch Days of Our Lives every day and add to the ever growing problem? Where does it end?

luangtom

December 6th, 2010
4:02 pm

CT, let’s start asking those that “receive” to make some sacrifices, too. Let’s ask that those that receive aid in food-stamps, general allotments, unemployment or whatever government-sponsored program to give back by performing civil enhancement work like raking leaves for the eldery, mowing lawns for the elderly or painting-over graffiti on public buildings in the Metro area. Would they be willing to make that sacrifice?

Good Grief

December 6th, 2010
4:03 pm

I heard an interesting notion the other day. If you want the rich to pay more, then perhaps they should be given a greater say in what happens in this country. Maybe a person’s vote should be based on how much they paid in taxes. If you paid no federal incomes taxes your vote should not count as much as a person who pays 35% of their income in taxes. How is that ‘fair’?

Just saying…

ctucker

December 6th, 2010
4:05 pm

Contractor@3:59, Here’s one reason: The economy was a lot healthier during the Clinton years. So what’s so wrong with allowing tax rates for the rich to revert to what they were then?