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

Lane

December 6th, 2010
4:05 pm

OK, High Schoolers, enough with the name calling. Trying to have a civilized debate. Cutting 100% of “entitlements” wouldn’t retire the deficit. Just trying to make the numbers work.

spectator

December 6th, 2010
4:06 pm

In my opinion, the real question is, why should anyone have to pay more in taxes? Is it so the liberal politicians in Washington have more money to buy votes, prop up unions, give to those who won’t work? The “Great Society” is a “Great Failure” and a monument to the idiocy of runaway social spending which is truly designed to create a dependent class (these are called DEMOCRATS).

Skitty Fritty

December 6th, 2010
4:07 pm

The real problem is a spending or debt problem. All we are focusing on is the taxation issue. If we don’t cut spending and not just cut future increases then the tax rates won’t matter.

ronald

December 6th, 2010
4:07 pm

I love how Cynthia says “the nation that has GIVEN them so much”. As if the wealthy in this country won some type of lottery and the gov’t just handed over wealth and riches to these people.

For the most part, the wealthy in this country are wealthy because they work harder and longer than the rest of the country. The country didn’t GIVE them anything, they EARNED it.

AND they already pay more in taxes than everyone else anyway.

Skitty Fritty

December 6th, 2010
4:09 pm

Why can’t the federal government have a “Balanced Budget” amendment with one exception, times of war. This would make the government declare war if needed and not just fight conflicts like we do currently.
I am thankful the state of Georgia has a “Balanced Budget”. It is the only way to force the Federal Government to reign in spending.

ronald

December 6th, 2010
4:10 pm

another tactic used by Cynthia is when she says “that they may be asked to make a small financial sacrifice ” Small? Sacrifice?

The rich in this county ALREADY pay a higher rate than everyone else. If you need to find $$ somehow, why would you go increase taxes on the portion of the country that ALREADY pays a higher rate than everyone else. The rich already pay a higher % of their income in taxes and you’re now asking them to pay even more? Cynthia doesn’t understand anything about fairness, she only understands class envy and wealth redistribution.

Contractor

December 6th, 2010
4:11 pm

Tucker,

Then why not tax everyone as a whole the same percentage? No one person is better than another, atleast by your standards. So why should someone making a million dollars be taxed more than say, you? And it was the Clinton years and policies that got us to this point, so your point is moot.

T-dog

December 6th, 2010
4:12 pm

CTucker: Tell me your opinion about the young physician who makes $250k/yr, but has so little expendible income because he owes $350k in student loans and his wife owes $150k in student loans. This physician would fall into the higher tax bracket, yet has less expendible income than a single person making $70k/yr. These people do exist and a higher tax for them is hardly justifiable.

Kellie

December 6th, 2010
4:12 pm

What do you mean by what this nation has given them? It seems to me that they are the ones who actually go out and EARN what they make by taking a chance and starting a business. They employee others and have the headache of making sure they can keep them employed. The only people I see being given something by our nation are those that accept those government handouts from one generation to the next, whether it be welfare, food stamps, or to have their Medicaid babies. But I suppose that is OK, right?

travelingman141

December 6th, 2010
4:13 pm

12/6/10 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…..

Well nothing yet from Granny or Cynthia. Guess that proves my point

DB

December 6th, 2010
4:14 pm

Two words: Fair Tax

The tax system in this country is so convoluted, it is going to implode.

UGADawg83

December 6th, 2010
4:15 pm

Here’s the deal….if you earn it it’s yours. Whether you are rich, middle class or poor the truth is that the government is taking what is yours and using it for what it wants. When we talk about taxes let’s be honest.

Kamchak's gerbil

December 6th, 2010
4:15 pm

CT – why must I pay for others to eat?????

DB

December 6th, 2010
4:18 pm

“the health of the nation that has given them so much”. WTH? They went to school, they learned, they started businesses, they employ people, they provide economic strength to the communities they work in. The nation hasn’t given them any more than it has given anyone else — and in most cases, the nation has given them considerably LESS. After all, the rich tend to pay for their own medical care, their own housing, their own food, their own schooling, etc., etc. The nation gives them NOTHING except higher tax bills.

sally

December 6th, 2010
4:22 pm

Disband the us military, problem solved. Your welcome…

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
4:23 pm

Two words: Fair Tax

Three words: Ain’t gonna happen.

ronald

December 6th, 2010
4:26 pm

Cynthia and her ilk are falling out of favor and very quickly. The absurdity of her opinion today is shared by her fellow left-wingers remaining in Congress. They are all dying quickly. When Cynthia and her ilk fade away into the sunset, then maybe the ideals of fairness can exist in this country again.

Good Grief

December 6th, 2010
4:27 pm

In my experience, it’s pretty common for liberals to treat the wealthy as though they were the winners in “life’s lottery.” After all, no one has ever earned wealth, right? They used evil, filthy dealings to exploit the lower and middle classes.

William C Smith

December 6th, 2010
4:27 pm

The world is a strange thing. The top bonuses given to CEO’s where given to those that had the most lay offs in there corporation. You would think in these times of economic downturns they would have taken no bonuses at all. Now we are told these same people will not give jobs if they do not continue to get there tax cuts. Am I wrong to think this makes no sense.

Mr. Cool

December 6th, 2010
4:29 pm

I would like to see this nation balance our annual budget (including military spending) and to install a standard tax rate on all transactions, goods, and services.

The government size should be restricted to its’ annual revenue and the annual revenue should be based on collecting limited taxes on everything. No more income tax filing!

Why should we continue letting certain transactions, goods, and services go untaxed? The super rich population has been getting away too long by not paying their fair share of taxes by using write offs, loopholes, offshore accounts and political contribution.

This action will force us to live within our means and will stop giving all these —- tax breaks.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
4:31 pm

OH NOES! NOT THE ILK CARD!

I’m melting…melting…melting….

williebkind

December 6th, 2010
4:31 pm

I do not care about taxing one more than the other. What I care about is who is this employer who will pay out millions in wages to one employee. That business needs no tax breaks. I do not believe any wage earner is worth millions. Not even CT! You have a minimum wage why dont we have a maximum wage?

Blue

December 6th, 2010
4:32 pm

T-Dawg; great points, but don’t bother holding your breath for an answer from CT. The only ‘right’ posts she replies to is the ones where she knows she can win. For rational, well stated questions like yours with a specific situation that she knows she is too stupid to respond to, she is just going to let it ride. She’ll give her “Amen” to people who agree, and call out people who disagree but do so with no intelligence, but yours…and many others… (crickets)…she is on to her next copy and paste from that bastian of balance, NYT.

BlahBlahBlah

December 6th, 2010
4:32 pm

I’m so tired of the “things were awesome in the Clinton years with higher taxes” argument.

Three words: dot com bubble

(all the $$$ pumped into the phony Y2K scam didn’t hurt either – funny how the bubble burst a few months after that)

Scott

December 6th, 2010
4:33 pm

Cynthia, this is the most ignorant post I’ve ever read. Get your head out of your a$$ and stop lumping people into broad generalizations. Maybe you should have an editor read these things before you post them. Shocked that Cox actually pays you to write crap like this…

williebkind

December 6th, 2010
4:33 pm

BlahBlahBlah

December 6th, 2010
4:32 pm
You are totally right! No one talks about that do they!

HalfAClue

December 6th, 2010
4:36 pm

Wow, such wealth envy, Ms. Tucker. Yes, yes, these high earners didn’t get to where they are by earning it and working hard over many years, they must’ve stolen from the poor or treaded on the backs of those same poor people. Yes, these greedy hard-workers don’t deserve their wealth. So from your point of view, no one should aspire to become wealthy, just become well off enough to get by and anything above this threshold should be given to those who don’t earn as much (read work as hard). Sounds sort of like socialism to me, but then again in your eyes I’m just a capitalist pig trying to get rich. I’ve come to expect this kind of writing from someone like yourself (read liberal a$$).

Kamchak's gerbil

December 6th, 2010
4:39 pm

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
4:31 pm
OH NOES! NOT THE ILK CARD!

I’m melting…melting…melting….

Does melting mean something????

Average Joe

December 6th, 2010
4:40 pm

Interesting topic. The easy answer and most basic is to do away with the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. Wealthy people like to spend money to buy a high dollar image and will pay more taxes. Poor people spend less money and would pay less tax, still EVERYONE should pay something. The current tax code is an abomination.

ck hall

December 6th, 2010
4:41 pm

Don’t worry–The GOP has made sure the Obama crowd can’t tell us how much we should earn!

ronald

December 6th, 2010
4:41 pm

Willie B Kind said “who is this employer who will pay out millions in wages to one employee. That business needs no tax breaks. I do not believe any wage earner is worth millions. Not even CT! You have a minimum wage why dont we have a maximum wage?”

Willie- Since you obviously don’t understand how capitalism works, let me ask you a question. How should corporations compensate their top salesmen who bring in tens of millions of revenue to their companies each year? You think they deserve $25,000 a year just like the receptionist?

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
4:44 pm

Tell me your opinion about the young physician who makes $250k/yr, but has so little expendible[sic] income because he owes $350k in student loans and his wife owes $150k in student loans.

Well obviously this couple bought more education than they could afford, and if they could just forgo the flat screen TeeVees, multiple cellphones, BMWs, Mercedes.Benz, Humvees, Seados, Country Club memberships, the house at the lake, expensive Nikes for the kids….

T-dog

December 6th, 2010
4:46 pm

Blue, Thanks for the post. Too bad that some people just don’t get it.

Kamchak's gerbil

December 6th, 2010
4:47 pm

Kamy – it’s none of your damn business what they should forgo!!!!

NA

December 6th, 2010
4:47 pm

williebekind—– a Maximum Wage????????????
So you would be a cap on genius, you would hold back ingenuity, you would stop success,
Maybe if Life was a football game you would say each person can only advance the ball so far.
So if the running back breaks free to rush for over a hundred yards you would say stop him as his maximum gain can only be 15 yards, just to be fair. Hey and one wide receiver already caught 2 passess today, lets make sure they all catch two passes even if they are not all as talented as the first receiver, oh and let’s sit him on the bench for the next three games until everyone catches their fair share of passes and maybe we can shoot the quarterback if he attempts to give one receiver more catches than the other, never mind that one of your receivers can not even catch the ball but keep throwing it to him anway, maybe the ball will get stuck in his face guard.
We could have all games end at zero zero———– the turn out would be great ——– people would come from Miles around to see no body win———– Hey Cynthia see if this works in your mind. it sounds like it works in Williebekind’s mind and a few other of your readers, which also amazes me that some of your supporters can even read.

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
4:48 pm

Blue: Great points by T-Dawg? Y-Dawg argues about “young physician who makes $250k/yr, but has so little expendible income because he owes $350k in student loans and his wife owes $150k in student loans.” How about laughable. First of all, this young physician would not pay ANY higher taxes under the Democrats’ proposal. Have you not noticed that the higher tax would apply to the income OVER $250k/yr ? And even if he earned some more and paid a little higher tax on that extra income, what percentage of the income earner does he represent?

The Nerve

December 6th, 2010
4:49 pm

Liberals are all about fairness and equality….until it comes time to pay the bill.

Tychus Findlay

December 6th, 2010
4:56 pm

Someone’s got to be the next generation of physicians, Kamchak. Are you saying that only those who can afford to pay cash for medical school should become doctors? That sounds dangerously counter-intuitive to your typical mantra….

James

December 6th, 2010
4:57 pm

more “against CT column” coming in at the end of the day- hmmmmm……..

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

December 6th, 2010
4:57 pm

We don’t work for you, just sayin…

T-dog

December 6th, 2010
5:00 pm

Kamchak,
That is the most ridiculious post I have ever read. You obviously have no idea that financial responsibility of a MINIMUM of $2500/month for student loans would not leave much money to provide a lake house, and all of the extravagances of which you speak. It is ashame that since you will never know success you generalize about others without understanding financial and family responsibilities.
MarkV,
It’s not like if you make $251k that you get taxed higher on 1k…..if you break the barrier by even a small margin, you are pushed into a higher bracket. So, let’s get this straight. The physician takes and extra call for $$ and saves the life of your kid. Now he/she is financially punished for going over the $250k/yr ceiling. This is an ingenious system.

Jim

December 6th, 2010
5:04 pm

Cynthia — please tell me why you should have any say regarding how much money I make?

Libertarian

December 6th, 2010
5:07 pm

Why do you people bother trying to engage Kamchak in a sensible debate?

I know why CT continues to write this junk about taxing the rich…because she gets about 400 comments on it…thats all she’s looking for. She’s good at getting everyone fired up, that’s for sure. This is the most sickening blog I believe I’ve ever seen from her. Congrats, CT.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
5:07 pm

Kamchak,
That is the most ridiculious[sic] post I have ever read. You obviously have no idea that financial responsibility of a MINIMUM of $2500/month for student loans would not leave much money to provide a lake house, and all of the extravagances of which you speak.

Really sport?

Because it’s the exact same argument about people buying more house than they could afford, all the while enjoying what others labeled as “extravagance.”

When you start calling out others for using this same argument you will begin to have a point.

But until then….

Hmmm

December 6th, 2010
5:08 pm

Wow, so winning a Pulitzer Prize doesn’t pay the big bucks? One would think if Ms Tucker was raking in the cash, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. Jealous perhaps? Only her accountant knows for sure! :)

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
5:09 pm

T-dog: “if you break the barrier by even a small margin, you are pushed into a higher bracket.”
Check your facts. You are absolutely wrong.

Road Scholar

December 6th, 2010
5:10 pm

T-Dog: Based on an opinion analysis last week by Jay, he would pay additional tax on that $1K and would get/keep a $6K tax cut for the first $250K. This was not contested by any conserve then!

old-timer

December 6th, 2010
5:12 pm

Why does the government get to decide who has enough. My husband and I have both retired, moved to another state and have taken new jobs. Yes due to good pensions we will have to pay more taxes. But in reality we are finally able to really save for the first time in our life. We send money to elderly parents every month. Contribute to community needs. If our taxes rise most of thei weill go as saving for out “golden” years right now is a necessity. By the way we are both educators…who really struggled when raising our kids..who paid most of their own education. So we are righh????

Road Scholar

December 6th, 2010
5:15 pm

If you don’t like ANY OF CT’s opinions and you get riled up enough to insult people, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU POSTING HERE? You must just like to insult people…and not to their face! You are an outstanding person and well mannered citizen! (BS)

old-timer

December 6th, 2010
5:15 pm

I, too am in support of Fair Tax.