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

Mr Awesome

December 6th, 2010
10:27 am

Way to push class warfare Cynthia, classy as always. 40 or 50K is a pretty big sacrifice.

Mr Awesome

December 6th, 2010
10:28 am

When does one go from being just rich “filthy” rich?

Hostage

December 6th, 2010
10:31 am

I see that the only way to extend UI benefits is to give the tax break.

When the unemployed spend that money on necessities then the right can say ‘SEE THE TAX BREAK SPURRED THE ECONOMY’

ByteMe

December 6th, 2010
10:33 am

The difference is not $40,000 to $50,000. It’s exactly $30,000 on $1 million. In other words, for every $1000 they make above $250,000 they’d have to pay an additional $30 in taxes. Oh, the humanity! They might as well jump out of the window now.

B Cosby

December 6th, 2010
10:33 am

Why should the rich pay more than their fair share? The percentage of income taxes paid should be the same for all. “robber barons” In modern US parlance, the term is used to describe unscrupulous industrialists, i.e. Bill Gates, giving $60 billion to charity, Warren Buffett gives 85% of $44 billion to charity. “robber barons”!Did Oprah offer up anything of this magnitude.

Fletch

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. How can any reasonable person expect to survive on that? In addition, if my rate goes up from what I’ve been paying for the last 10 years, how will I be able to suddenly start hiring and decrease the unemployment rate? I pray that the GOP gets it’s way, because it would be too damaging to the economy if I were to suddenly forced to start paying taxes at the rate I used to pay before the tax breaks breaks were put in place.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
10:36 am

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.

But…but…but…Econ 101 Phlogiston Economics proves that if the rich shower us with their largess trickle on us, all boats will rise.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
10:38 am

What Cynthia is not reporting is those SMALL business owners that will be hit hard by this move. Typical to make it seem it only hits the upper portion.

SpaceyG

December 6th, 2010
10:39 am

I sure hope they’ve settled this filthy-rich tax thing by Christmas. As if holidays with elderly cranky parsimonious white southerners weren’t insufferable enough.

ByteMe

December 6th, 2010
10:40 am

@Georgian: define “SMALL business owners”. Do you mean the Koch brothers? Define “hit hard”? Is $30 less of $1000 really being “hit hard”?

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
10:41 am

Georgian – I am a small business owner ( roughly 200 employees). based on my cost analysis for 2011, even with a tax increase of up to 35%, I’m not hurting. However, unless there is a demand for my product, hiring will remain the same. So if you want to let me keep my tax break, that’s awesome. However, please don’t expect that it will make a dent in the unemployment rate anytime soon.

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
10:43 am

The attitude of the rich – some of them, bacause not all of them want lower taxes – is selfish, but at least understandable. The behavior of Republicans in Congress with regard to the tax matters (as well as many other matters), on the other hand, is cynical, and hypocritical.

Bubba Bob

December 6th, 2010
10:45 am

I’m ok with the wealthy paying more. Why aren’t we also talking about massive spending cuts? We can’t expect people to pay more without showing we’ll be responsible with the money.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
10:46 am

Fletch,

How much income does your “small” business generate?

ByteMe

December 6th, 2010
10:47 am

@Bubba: where would you start that has a political chance of passing Congress?

ctucker

December 6th, 2010
10:48 am

Georgian@10:38, I’m with those who are calling for definitions. Are you including among those “small” businesses, for example, law firms in which the partners average gross personal pay of upwards of $500,000 a year? I know several of those partners, and they can well stand to pay more

Jack

December 6th, 2010
10:49 am

This piece has absolutely nothing to do with taxes. It has everything to do with trying to convince certain voters that they are put upon by successful people and that producers are evil and should be punished. It’s a liberal’s feeble attempt to promote the Marxist agenda.

granny godzilla

December 6th, 2010
10:49 am

Class warfare?

Yep, the 5% have declared it upon the 95%.

And while that 5% has got most of the $$$$$ it appears they actually have very little class.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
10:49 am

ByteMe,

Don’t be ludacris….

ctucker

December 6th, 2010
10:49 am

Fletch@10:35, Amen.

ctucker

December 6th, 2010
10:49 am

B Cosby@10:33, Please define “fair share”

granny godzilla

December 6th, 2010
10:50 am

Groucho Marxist!

He never met a man he didn’t like, but in your case he’d make an exception!

Just so much duck soup.

ctucker

December 6th, 2010
10:50 am

BTW, B Cosby@10:33, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates’ dad think the rich should be paying more in taxes. So I certainly don’t include them among the “robber barons”

ByteMe

December 6th, 2010
10:51 am

@Georgian… I’m not being a rapper… or ludicrous in my questions. I’m calling out your broad statements for what they are: talking points with no clear basis in reality. Step up to the plate and define what you mean.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
10:52 am

Georgian,

Let’s just say that it’s enough to put me in the “increase” category. Having said that, please don’t get me wrong, I’m all for low taxes. However, there is a difference between someone wanting low taxes, and the myth that is floating around out there that somehow no one will hire anyone if their taxes revert back to 2000 levels. i have a hard time believing that hiring has sluggish for the last 2 years simply because the business leaders just weren’t sure what the tax burden might be for 2011. As I stated earlier, cost analysis as well as P and L forecasts are a part of any business plan. I can adjust the numbers either positive or negative to see where my margins fall. If demand picks up, I hire more people, if it falls, I re-crunch the numbers and make the appropriate adjustments. Rarely do I sit on my hands waiting for the uncertainty to go away.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
10:53 am

Tucker,

Standing to pay more and having to pay it are two totally different things. You’re basically saying, okay you made way too much money this year. Its not fair to that dead beat sitting on their tush at home with 6 kids and 2 on the way. You are going to have to pay more taxes so we can give some assistance to those good folks at the bottom of the chain. You don’t deserve to spend your own money on yourself, your family, safeguard your retirement, or save for the future. Give your money freely to those who don’t do anything to earn it. After all, we’re the federal government and we know better than you what to do with your family, your money, your career, your business, and your life.

DC

December 6th, 2010
10:54 am

Punish the rich!! How dare they accumulate more money by starting business, employing people and creating jobs. Don’t they understand that we MUST punish that type of behavior?

Mr Right

December 6th, 2010
10:55 am

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
10:41 am

So if you want to gave more to the Gov to waste go ahead and give it if you want to!

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
10:56 am

Fletch,

Would you rather have your money to expand and grow as you see fit, or allow the feds to raise taxes and spend it as THEY see fit?

Bubba Bob

December 6th, 2010
10:57 am

Byte,

I have no idea what would pass. That’s the problem. Look at the compromise that is brewing:

GOP – let us keep taxes down on the wealthy (reducing revenue) and we’ll let you spend more.
Dems – let us spend more money (more debt) and we’ll let you keep taxes down

The result = less revenue and more debt. Both sides are nuts.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 6th, 2010
10:57 am

OMG! What if the government had to make do with less. One wonders why people love Big Brother so much, when all it does effectively is kill people, deprive people of freedom, and waste money.

Jimmy62

December 6th, 2010
10:57 am

Last I checked, half the people that ran Goldman Sachs are in the Obama administration, and the people that urged home loans for everyone and said we could not do anything to rein ion Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Democrats.

The rich didn’t cause this, politicians being in bed with corporations caused this.

Bryan G.

December 6th, 2010
10:58 am

I’d rather all Americans keep their money as opposed to have to give more to the government.

As I understand it, raising taxes on the “rich” will lead to $700B in increased revenue over 10 years. By my calculation, that is 5% of the National debt and only about 7% of our annual deficit.

The solution to our problems lies on the “outgo” side of the balance sheet and not in the “income” side.

granny godzilla

December 6th, 2010
10:58 am

From TPM

“The Republican National Committee will enter the 2012 presidential election “between $20 million and $25 million in debt” as a result of poor fundraising and financial mismanagement. “It’s the biggest debt the national committee ever had going into a presidential election cycle,” said former RNC General Counsel David Norcross”

And you expect us to allow these folks to lead the way on the economy?

D’UH

ByteMe

December 6th, 2010
10:58 am

We have hedge fund managers taking their millions in pay as “capital gains” and being taxed at 15%. We have super-rich people paying a smaller percentage of their income than that. We have no estate taxes (this year) and a contingent calling them “death taxes” in order to keep all of it “in the family”. We have the super-rich pouring their money into one Congressional Party or the other in order to affect tax law so that they can keep even more of their money.

We are seeing the re-emergence of an all-powerful oligarchy. This country went through the same problem over 100 years ago and it took some serious populist actions to get it under control. Some would call it “liberal” to attack these people, but it’s really just populist.

So why is it that support for lower tax rates for people making more than $1,000,000 per year is highest among people who will NEVER IN THEIR LIFE make that much in a year short of winning the lottery?

Tracy

December 6th, 2010
10:59 am

The kicker to this entire issue is the fact that the two richest men in this country (Gates and Buffett) both support raising taxes on the wealthy. Then again, what would Buffett know about money ? Come on, a guy born middle class who self-made his way up to 2nd richest man. I’m sure he knows nothing about the economy **sarcasm alert**

quod erat demonstrandum

December 6th, 2010
11:00 am

CT, they already pay more than their fair share – geez, where is the left’s fairness doctrine for the successful?

Keep up the good fight!

December 6th, 2010
11:00 am

No BONUS for BILLIONAIRES!

They get the same tax break on the 1st $250,000 that everyone else does. Why must they have more?

Bubba Bob

December 6th, 2010
11:00 am

Granny,

And what do the Dems know about leading us out of this? Spending more is sure to help…..

Bryan G.

December 6th, 2010
11:01 am

If Gates and Buffett want to pay more….they can send treasury a donation.

Bubba Bob

December 6th, 2010
11:01 am

Tracy,

With all due respect to Buffet…he supported the first stimulus package and after it passed called it ‘half Viagra and candy” and said we needed another one.

If he’s so smart why did he support something that was 1/2 Viagra and candy? Because it helped him out.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
11:01 am

Georgian,

My money already expands and grows due to investing and diversification. We’re talking about a miniscule amount of income being re-allocated for taxes. Unless you are in the 2% club, you’re taxes wouldn’t go up anyway, so you are still free to provide for your family, expand your money, or stuff it all into your mattress. For those in the upper 2% (myself included), they won’t miss it anyway.

Mr Right

December 6th, 2010
11:02 am

The solution to our problems lies on the “outgo” side of the balance sheet and not in the “income” side.

When are you going to run for President, seems you are the only one that has it figured out!

Keep up the good fight!

December 6th, 2010
11:04 am

When they actually cut spending and pay down the debt, THEN we can discuss tax cuts. Until then, the call for tax cuts is just more of the Republican No-Tax and Spend.

granny godzilla

December 6th, 2010
11:05 am

Bubba Bob

They knew enough to – guess what – lead us out of the worst of it.

Keep in mind that the GOP told us late into the process that it was only a “mental recession”….

Mental indeed.

Mr Right

December 6th, 2010
11:06 am

For those in the upper 2% (myself included), they won’t miss it anyway.

Then give it now, why wait ? Come on put your money where your mouth is!!

Bubba Bob

December 6th, 2010
11:06 am

Granny,

So they led us out of the worst of it all by themselves? Not giving Bush credit for getting TARP going? I was against it but he did lead it out. I’m surprised that you forgot that.

quod erat demonstrandum

December 6th, 2010
11:07 am

Class warfare is not something that comes to mind when talking about America. Here we all have the same opportunity to make good or not.

Here if you work hard you can achieve success and grow rich.

For many on the left, they feel that if I get “rich” someone else gets poor. Or for those in mid-town, wealth does not grow or contract, it remains constant and it just gets moved around.

Typical ignorant progressives.

B Cosby

December 6th, 2010
11:08 am

@CT 10:49 “Fair Share” Calculate fair tax proportional to income. CT’s definition: Everybody else but me should pay taxes. I shouldn’t have to because I’ve had such a hard life, or my ancestors did, or I’m a Sagittarius, or a vegan, or simply because I’m so cool.
CT@ 10:50 Your article referenced the filthy rich, it did not single out certain people or groups. “These are folks who manufacture nothing”. There are some good people in the world, believe it or not some are even white. B Cosby says stand on your own two feet and stop looking for someone to blame and trying to figure out, Where’s mine?

ByteMe

December 6th, 2010
11:08 am

@Bubba: my recipe would be the following:

- End both wars and spend less than half the money on increased border (including ports) security.

- Get rid of the social security income cap (solves that problem immediately).

- Increase Medicare payroll percentage by 0.5% (solves that problem for a good 30 years).

- Increase the tax on imported oil by $0.50 and then take away some of the giveaways to the oil companies. Funnel half that money to states for transportation projects ONLY (states are having a bad time, so this helps them as well as decreases unemployment payments and further increases tax revenues by putting more construction people to work).

- Then tackle the issue of doctors getting paid more to run unnecessary tests, just because they have a financial interest in the medical testing company (to cut Medicare costs).

It’s better than the garbage they’re doing now.

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.

AngryRedMarsWoman

December 6th, 2010
11:50 am

“The truth is individuals who make more than 200,000 will be taxed more, as well as families making more than 250,000.”

And that is the rub too. My BF makes considerably less money than I do…if we marry, we would collectively see an increase of $4k per annum in taxes, and that under the current rates. Why should we pay less by staying single? Why should the higher taxes not apply to two people living together who each make $150k, but apply to them if they get married? This is but one of the insanities of our current tax system…we need to simplify….get rid of all deductions except for other taxes paid and create additional tax brackets.

Tommy Maddox

December 6th, 2010
11:51 am

This all reminds me of a mutated version of an evening conversation in old Forsyth County:

“Look – a RICH guy!”

“Well don’t just stand there – get him!”

Keep up the good fight!

December 6th, 2010
11:51 am

Georgian…why should my tax dollars go to support someone who gets a lower capital gains rate for their salary? Or who gets a tax holiday or credit for their investments? Or who moves jobs overseas with my tax money? Or who defrauds the public with bogus accounting and costs us millions to investigate? Or who violates the law to make more money? Tell the rich to stop taking my tax dollars to increase their personal wealth.

Chuck

December 6th, 2010
11:51 am

That is the problem, the democrats want their supporters believe that it is the wealthy that are the problem and the republicans want their supporters to believe it is the poor that are the problem. They are just trying to distracted us from the absolute lack of REAL leadership coming from BOTH parties.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
11:51 am

Georgian,

Not really. I was talking about what he brings home. The operating costs for running the business are seperate. As I said, it’s all about the allocation of assets. Even though we have different ways of doing business, neither one of us is hurting financially. He won’t see an increase in his taxes and I will. But again, it doesn’t bother me.

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 6th, 2010
11:54 am

Keep up the good fight!: why should my tax dollars go to support someone who gets a lower capital gains rate for their salary?
——————–

It doesn’t. People who live off their capital gains are generally productive and smart enough to provide for themselves. Go ahead and provide an example of your claim.

Didn’t think so.

MC

December 6th, 2010
11:55 am

Hey folks! Have no fear. Extend those tax cuts, extend unemployment compensation and over time all those tax cuts will create all those jobs and solve our unemployment problems now won’t they? Just like they did over the last 10 years. LMAO! ROFL!

George P. Burdell

December 6th, 2010
11:57 am

Fletch,

Your friend with the business is either paying the corporate tax rate on the business or doing some completely illegal if it is an S corp, LLC etc. You simply cannot make over a million dollars a year and only pay taxes on $10,000.

Keep up the good fight!

December 6th, 2010
11:58 am

LBB…are you really so clueless not to know that the salaries paid to most hedge fund managers have a loophole that means that their salaries are only taxed at the capital gains rate.

Yes I think you are!

sean smith

December 6th, 2010
12:00 pm

Germany has an unemployment rate of 2-4%, or what they consider FULL employment. Everyone who wants a job has one. The top personal tax rate is around 45% and their corporate rate is just under 30%. I guess the German rich folks aren’t as selfish as America robber barons and realize you cant have a healthy economy when the majority of the wealth is in the hands of a few selfish gready folks at the top.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
12:01 pm

Keep,

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Thats all youre really saying.

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 6th, 2010
12:01 pm

Keep up, I’m well aware of that, but you claimed you were somehow supporting these hedge fund managers. Your comment is uninformed, laughable, and demi-tarded.

Chuck

December 6th, 2010
12:04 pm

Reading the comments on this board proves to me that what the so called leaders in Washington have this situation figured out. They have everyone taking sides and fighting over the wrong issues. It will not be many more years before the entire years budget will have to go to pay the interest on national debt. We are headed for a massive economic collapse and people are fighting over small percentage tax increases/decreases and who is rich and who is not. Like sheep to the slaughter.

Keep up the good fight!

December 6th, 2010
12:06 pm

LBB, if they are getting a lower tax rate than I am, I am supporting them. Otherwise you acknowledge that some people should pay more, so we can then stop the whining about some people paying more.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
12:08 pm

Keep,

You keep on dreaming that you’re supporting them and we’ll wake you in a few hundred years.

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 6th, 2010
12:09 pm

Nonsense. You think you pay more in taxes than hedge fund managers? You’re a joke. They’re paying their “fair share” plus most of yours.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:11 pm

George,

You’re right. However, you can filter a large number of personal expenses through the business. Beleive me, I’ve had numerous discussions with him in regard to the risk, especially since there has been a call for increased regulation. Unfortunately, we have to agree to disagree.

In relation to my argument, I have said earlier that I’m all for low taxes, I think their great. I’m able to take advantage of a lot of tax breaks that the average Joe probably doesn’t even know exsits. I’ve done very well over the last 10 years under the Bush Administration. However, because I’ve been fortunate, and I do profit from a number of the legal tax loop holes, I don’t really have an issue in seeing an increase in my Federal tax rate. If that’s the price for my success, then so be it.

Keep up the good fight!

December 6th, 2010
12:12 pm

Barry…keep up your ignorance…but if I earn $250,000 and pay up to 35% and they pay 15% on the same $250,000 then I have paid more. But you can play games all you want. The hypocrisy is showing and you and Georiga both know you are out of touch with most Americans on this stupidity

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
12:13 pm

Fletch,

Whats the name of your business?

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
12:15 pm

Keep,

We are out of touch with most Americans? I believe the majority favor lower taxes for all Americans.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:16 pm

Which one? in California and Nevada our companies are held under Black Knight Investments. In Montana our companies are held under Compendium Investments and in Georia our companies are held under Brownstone Securities. Which one did you want me to elaborate on?

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 6th, 2010
12:16 pm

That’s a lot of ifs, Keep.

Truth be told, cap gains should be taxed at 0%. It’s ignorant and counter-productive to tax them at any rate higher than that.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:17 pm

Lil,

Capitol gains are taxed at 0% through the establishment of a Unitrust.

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 6th, 2010
12:21 pm

Too bad we don’t all keep our investments in a Unitrust. Our economy would be much better off!

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:22 pm

Lil,

LOL if everyone did that, there wouldn’t be any tax revenue.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
12:23 pm

Fletch,

So the name of your companies are?

Keep up the good fight!

December 6th, 2010
12:23 pm

gator24

December 6th, 2010
12:24 pm

What sad is that average Americans who aren’t wealthy believe tax cuts create jobs and they to maybe one day wealthy too and have to pay the same tax rate also. George Bush Sr called it Voodoo economics over twenty years ago. There has been no evidence these tax cuts for the wealthy help economy nor help create jobs. Its just greed, When you are a person like John McCain who didn’t know how many houses he owned, people still listen to Fox and believe what they here.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:30 pm

Georgian,

I won’t give you the specific names, because I don’t know you from a hole in the wall. If you want to know what we do, then I’m happy to tell you:

Black Knight Investments – California and Nevada Private and Public Security for the greater Los Angeles area and for Metropolitan Las Vegas some FT security as well as contractors.

Compendium Investments – Montana – Beef production facilities in Opheim and Round Up, small processing facility in Scobey.

Brownstone Securities – Georgia – Liquor Distribution, Air Charter and Professional Employer Services.

Liberal Chicks are UGLY

December 6th, 2010
12:31 pm

Typical liberal logic…Sacrifices must be made! By others not me….
Why do liberals think they are more important than everybody else. Maybe if you put as much effort in to taking care of yourself as you do on bitch about what others owe you, you wouldn’t need other people’s money.

Those who want others to pay more taxes should pay more themselves first. Otherwise you’re a hypocrit.

Liberal Chicks are UGLY

December 6th, 2010
12:32 pm

Nothing says “ME” more than making others carry your burden for you.

Hootinanny Yum Yum

December 6th, 2010
12:33 pm

“Filthy Rich”…… BWAAAAAHHHH…….

Liberal Chicks are UGLY

December 6th, 2010
12:36 pm

Rich people are such dicks! This guy the other day would not give me his Ferarri! Waht a jerk….I was willing to trade him my car, he could have gotten around.

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 6th, 2010
12:40 pm

Fletch: LOL if everyone did that, there wouldn’t be any tax revenue.
—————————

What about the chumps who pay income tax? Can we keep that in a Unitrust too?

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
12:41 pm

Fletch,

Oh I see. I understand. Not that telling me your business name would reveal anything, but ok.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:43 pm

Lil,

LOL, Probably not. A Unitrust is simply a diversified portfolio that allows you to draw annual income without paying the cap gains tax. It’s only one of a number of tax shelters. However, income tax is still required as it funds our entire government. Without one, you couldn’t have the other.

George P. Burdell

December 6th, 2010
12:43 pm

Fletch,

I figured that was probably the case and I wasn’t really trying to argue a point one way or the other. A lot of what you are describing is how ineffective the tax code is in general which is another topic for another day. While I think we disagree on taxes in general, it is nice to have someone that puts together rational coherent points instead of the usual nonsense put forth on these blogs.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:47 pm

Georgian,

Okay, I’ll throw you a bone – In California, the security comany falls under KKOL Seurity Services, In Montana, beef production falls under beef by demand, and in Georgia one of our companies is Air Atlanta.

Not sure why you need to know, but I’m happy to oblige. Now what about you, what’s the name of your business?

Mr Right

December 6th, 2010
12:47 pm

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.

Bigger yawn! Isn’t it the Libs that want to take raise taxes ? Shucks I’m disappointed you don’t feel bad for me!

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 6th, 2010
12:48 pm

No, I’m GLAD income can’t be sheltered like that. Somebody has to fund the government!

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:50 pm

George P.,

Thanks, I appreciate that. I’m by no means a “tax advocate” As a business owner, I’d be foolish not to take advantage of the tax code in it’s current form. However, it because I recieve that benefit that allows me the ability to prosper. so if an increase is in my future, I simply regard it as fair play.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:52 pm

Lil,

I agree, unfortunately government is the necessary evil that everyone hates but yet still depends on in one form or another.

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:53 pm

Hey all, gotta get to work. Keep fighting the good fight!!

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
12:55 pm

Fletch,

Just wondering what “small” business you have, since the tax increase will not affect you. I was just curious.

And I am not a business owner.

andygrdzki

December 6th, 2010
12:57 pm

Okay, you many of you state that the rich should pay more in Taxes…. My question to you is, at what rate should they pay and how have you determined that rate?

I would realy like to know…….

Fletch

December 6th, 2010
12:57 pm

Georgian,

No problem. Actually the tax increase will affect me, as I stated earlier, I fall into the 2% category. However, I have a number of ways to shield my imcome so that I get to keep more of what I earn. Having said that,I’d still be on the hook for the Federal Taxes whatever they may be.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
12:58 pm

Why are we even having to have this discussion?

Because of stimulus, bail outs, and over spending by the Democrat controlled government on assistance programs.

Some People are stupid

December 6th, 2010
1:02 pm

This is about the most civil conversation I have seen on this blog in a while.

Some People are stupid

December 6th, 2010
1:06 pm

Georgian-
Because of stimulus, bail outs, and over spending by the Democrat controlled government on assistance programs.

Kinda got to call you out on this.
Bailouts- Was bi partisan, with a Republican president who actually asked for it. So all the blame goes to the democrats because they were in charge. So are we just going to disregard that republicans voted for it too.
Stimulus- 1/3rd was tax cuts..so are you saying tax cuts are bad
1/3rd was infrastructure spending, and 1/3rd went to state government, who asked for it. So when states request help, is the government suppose to let them fail.

Overspending- Please enlighten us on what other things comprise overspending? Bush left a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit and I can’t think of one thing that was particularlly exceptional that was being spent(besides supplemental war cost which probably make up most of the deficit)

Libertarian

December 6th, 2010
1:15 pm

Wall Street, home to some of the nation’s wealthiest and greediest capitalists….AND OBAMA CONTRIBUTORS.

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.

barking frog

December 6th, 2010
2:23 pm

It is difficult to collect taxes from people who have no money.

ButtHead

December 6th, 2010
2:23 pm

What a joke CT and her liberal friends are, class warfare is due to wealth envy. Go get a job, work your but off start your own business, no, that’s not the liberal way. Just take the money from those who did bust their a$$ to get ahead. Why is it so hard for a loser liberal to understand that they need to go to work to get ahead? Why do they believe that they deserve money made by anybody except them? If you want the rich to pay more go to the FairTax, then since the rich consume more they will pay more, without tax loop holes….

Lane

December 6th, 2010
2:23 pm

In 2006, 335,000 Americans claimed over $1,000,000 as their adjusted gross income on their personal taxes. In 2007, it was 392,000. That was before the crash. So all of this arguing about taxing people making a million dollars a year (after deductions) is about protecting 300,000 (or less) people who file personally instead of through their corporation.

Also, if these tax cut were so necessary to protect the economic engine why didn’t the economy tank during the 10 years they were in force?

This is just a political gambit to pander to people to get them to vote against their own best interest. This “millionaire” tax break couldn’t apply to more than 6000 individuals in Georgia (300,000 divided by 50 states) but people have been convinced it will apply to them. Yet 100% of the taxpayers of Georgia will “own” the deficit it creates.

The Fallne

December 6th, 2010
2:24 pm

The wealthy already pay more.

James

December 6th, 2010
2:24 pm

I can learn more reading Green Eggs and Ham. There should be a 100% toll on the salaries of mindless blog writers.

Lane

December 6th, 2010
2:24 pm

TYPO: Also, if these tax cut were so necessary to protect the economic engine why did the economy tank during the 10 years they were in force?

joe

December 6th, 2010
2:26 pm

CT would be a perfect fit with Robin Hood and his Merry Men back in the day…

ga tech 92

December 6th, 2010
2:26 pm

“filthy” sounds like a hate term to me. I’m about middle income and the term “filthy rich” is offensive to me. Isn’t it a crime to offend someone and to be a hate monger? I thought it was. Seems like some folks have been fired for saying offensive things lately. Bottom line is this – No amount of money is ever going to be ‘enough’ for a goverment, so the solution cannot be to ‘raise taxes’. The solution is to balance your budget with the dollars you have coming in. Cut spending, don’t raise taxes, ever. Every home in America has to live within it’s budget and can’t ‘demand more money at gun point’…

Eat the Rich

December 6th, 2010
2:26 pm

Instead of the rich paying more – how about the poor consuming less? I see LOTS of fat people collecting welfare checks. Apparently they can get by with less.

And how about taking aware welfare completely from people who are on welfare already but have additional children…..they can get by with less too.

I’m sick of punishing the successful and rewarding the failures in this country. If you reward failure and laziness – guess what you get – more failure and more laziness.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
2:28 pm

McKinney, Tucker, Pelosi…. does it really matter what you call them?

StJ

December 6th, 2010
2:28 pm

soak the rich…bait and switch…yada yada…this topic has been recycled to death.

Josh

December 6th, 2010
2:29 pm

OMG! What if we trained people to stop relying on the government and teach them to fish themselves? Here is a simple fact. You tax the rich more they pass the cost down to the middle class and poor and hire less people to work for them. OMG! Who would thunk that one!

ga tech 92

December 6th, 2010
2:30 pm

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.(…This is a quote from someone else…I didn’t make it up…but it’s worth reposting…)

W

December 6th, 2010
2:30 pm

We must oppress to sustain

Falcon1

December 6th, 2010
2:30 pm

Why is it liberal democrat socialists like Cynthia Tucker never want to talk about government SPENDING that could be reduced? Tax more spend more. That’s all they think about. 50% of this nation carries 98% of the tax burden. 10% of this nation carries over 70% of it. But yet somehow, someway, the mind of a liberal believes that the wealthy (IE: the successful) in this nation just don’t pay enough. And with 70% of all new job growth in this nation being from small businesses – the owner(s) of which also pay income taxes – the mentality is economically ignorant at best.

Soon to be minority leader Nancy Pelosi stated at the beginning of the year that with the passage of Obamacare, the burden of entrepreneurs having to pay for health care would be lifted and they would be free to start their own companies essentially burden free. Seriously. And she still wonders why she got voted out of power along with her cohorts in the House and several who got the pink slip in the Senate. “We did this for you” is what she whined. Talk about out of touch liberalism.

RB

December 6th, 2010
2:31 pm

MS..Tucker. I work my butt off to provide for my family and let me tell you as a small Business owner with 2 employees $250,000.00 is no where near rich; I’m barely middle class because of all the BS taxes I’m paying now. If they raise my taxes guess what, A. I’m not hiring anyone and B. I’m not giving raises. My kids go to a public school, I drive a 1995 Tahoe and I live in a house that cost $150,000.00. I still save for my kids to hopefully go to college one day. Why are my blood, sweat and tears being taken from me and my family to be given to someone less ambitious and made poor choices in life. I know generations of families living off the Govt. We should have a fair tax system that everyone pays.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
2:31 pm

If you want the rich to pay more go to the FairTax, then since the rich consume more they will pay more, without tax loop holes…

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The FairTax has yet to get out of committee, much less undergo the compromise procees that all legislation goes through.

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

I can learn more reading Green Eggs and Ham.

Is anyone stopping you from reading that particular literary masterpiece, Jimmie-poo?

The Nerve

December 6th, 2010
2:31 pm

LOL….”filthy rich”. Liberals are so funny.

George W

December 6th, 2010
2:33 pm

That is it….penalize those who are the most successful and then wonder why we have so many on Medicare.

MC

December 6th, 2010
2:33 pm

Would someone please answer Lane’s question? I’m as befuddled as he. This furor seems way out of proportion to the number of people affected on one side of the equation.

Falcon1

December 6th, 2010
2:33 pm

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”

And there we have why Communism and/or Marxism fails time after time.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
2:34 pm

…. does it really matter what you call them?

It does if words and their definitions matter to you.

If not…well, there’s your sign.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
2:34 pm

I do not like it Sam I Am, I do not like Green Eggs and Ham….. LOL classic.

Kamchak's gerbil

December 6th, 2010
2:35 pm

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.

Is “sport” a code word for something?

Franklin Raines

December 6th, 2010
2:35 pm

Cynthia, this is why your creditability is shot to H$ll and of no importance. ABC news did a report and yes if the tax cuts are extended for those making over 250K it will hurt revenue to the government however if they are extended to those also making less than 250K revenue will drop even more. We have a corrupt congress, president, lobbyist, federal entitlement programs and spending problem, not revenue problem. You will never get rid of the problem of greed, greed is also living on somebody else wealth and using the government to steal it. You liberal promote class warefare and envy daily.

So you have to ask the question, if small business have to pay more in taxes then will they stop investing in their business along with not hire people? I say yes they will not hire and stop investing because its common-sense. Why work to pay for government redistribution of wealth which is what Obama ran his presidential campaign on and these good white people that were responsible for him winning the office of President believed he was a centralist politician. Now the majority of blacks blame white people for his problems and rich people for having all the money. Rich people create jobs, invest in business, stock, build libraries with their name on it, hospitals, give to charity organizations, give land to black colleges like Spelman in Atlanta. People forget this guy if a educated fool, never accomplished anything beyond community organizing, and he did a poor job at that.

If rich people that already have wealth have a tax increase and listen you your liberal diatribe about how evil they are, will they have an incentive to invest in the economy by buying stock, provide venture capital into business, buy luxury goods, or will they say flip the poor, I am already rich, I will take care of me, my family and let the government take care of the poor. They have enough money to live anywhere in the world and take their filthy rich assets with they also.

Billybob

December 6th, 2010
2:36 pm

Your post is crystal clear Tucker. You hate the rich, they are the reason you have column after column on ‘victims’ that they are wronging. You are a socialist and this plays into your idea that the gov’t should decide how much money anyone should receive from ‘their own’ paycheck. Thanks for continuing to show people who you are. As long as there are ‘victims’ that you can highlight, the longer you and the far left can prey on these people for votes. Huge spending cuts and ‘business growth revenue’ together are the only way out of this mess. You and the far left’s idea of social justice and gov’t intervention is nothing more that a Marxist/Socialist ideology and that is a fact. When will you admit what and who you are for all to see. Coward……

Browncoat

December 6th, 2010
2:37 pm

MC and Lane, what if I passed a law that only taxed you two. Would the tax be “fair” because it only affected two people?

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
2:37 pm

McKinney- radical extreme liberal who uses race as a means to justify her positions on issues.

Tucker- Is there any difference?

Pelosi- Uses race as a means to push through the issues she deems “important” to attempt to grow her party.

Georgian

December 6th, 2010
2:38 pm

Kam uses sport and those other words as a means of intended insult, it just makes me chuckle at the kid.

Good Grief

December 6th, 2010
2:38 pm

Regarding the Fair Tax:

Kamchak, since it has yet to escape committee, I’d like to pose a question.

Doy ou think it could have anything to do with the misrepresentation given to the Fair tax by the political opposition?

Most people have never studied the Fair Tax proposal, but then they hear a politician say that the Fair Tax is just the addition of a 23% sales tax nation wide. They never mention the pre-embedded taxes that would be eliminated.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
2:41 pm

So you have to ask the question…

No, I really don’t.

In fact, you don’t have the authority to identify what it is that I “have” to do..

RB

December 6th, 2010
2:44 pm

Ms. Tucker have you ever run your own Business?

Cadbury

December 6th, 2010
2:46 pm

Go ahead & increase my taxes, I will off set them by buying a company plane.

amazed

December 6th, 2010
2:48 pm

I am waiting for all the professional athletes to come out and express gratitude for being able to do their part in the proposed tax rates for next year and beyond under Obama. For some reason, though, I’ll probably have to hold my breath. And another thing, why is Hillary pitching autograph copies of her DVD on home shopping networks now? Oh, she wants to make all that money she owes under the current tax rate.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
2:48 pm

Doy ou[sic] think it could have anything to do with the misrepresentation given to the Fair tax by the political opposition?

No.

It’s been stuck in committee when both Democrats and Republicans have had control the Senate and the House.

It’s a bad bill, and no matter how much you’ve studied of the two books that people were conned into buying, if it ever emerges as law, it will in no way resemble what you’ve memorized.

MC

December 6th, 2010
2:49 pm

While that may be true Browncoat, I still haven’t heard anyone attempt to rationalize how the largest tax cuts in American history resulted in a net loss of 9 million jobs. If these tax breaks don’t directly contribute to massive job creation,why add that 700 billion dollar tab to the bill future generations will have to pay?

Sarah

December 6th, 2010
2:51 pm

They can’t answer that MC.

B

December 6th, 2010
2:51 pm

Enter your comments here

wtf?

December 6th, 2010
2:53 pm

There are 2 sides to this. Why not cut spending in stead of raising taxes? There are A LOT of places we could cut spending and let people keep their own money. How much tax is too much? I think we are at that point right now.

Are you serious with this commentary Cynthia? It’s one thing to dislike rich people, but raising their taxes has been proven every time since WWII to actually lower the revenue pool, these are the facts. You raise more revenue from getting a smaller pice of the pie from everyone than a large pice of pie from a smaller group. That is just proven stone cold ecconomic truth of our tax system through the decades.

Cynthia, to claim otherwise is simply ignorant of the facts or politically based, both of which this country has no time for.

Boca Baby

December 6th, 2010
2:53 pm

Imagine that. You do not consider Bill Gates a “robber baron”? How did Gates get to where he is? Answer: By stealing technology. (Note: see Pirates of Silicon Valley). The rich stealing from the rich. I guess that is ok with you. He may have become a philanthropist but he hasn’t always been so. As an aside I find it laughable to see labels stating that it is unlawful to copy (without permission) computer software on Microsoft products.

Browncoat

December 6th, 2010
2:54 pm

MC, how do you know that the job losses wouldn;t have been 12 Million without the lower tax rates? Many economists believe that lowering tax rate will fuel the economy by putting more money in people’s hands, and in turn increasing total tax revenues. I believe that raising taxes right now will hurt the economy. How about we cut spending by 700 billion?

Good Grief

December 6th, 2010
2:54 pm

The filter must’ve found something offensive about my last comment…

Browncoat

December 6th, 2010
2:55 pm

I just did Sarah

And you wonder why your circulation continues to go down...

December 6th, 2010
2:58 pm

Cynthia – I really can see why your circulation continues to dwindle quickly. I believe that those of us who actually produce the jobs and pay the taxes in this community (yes, the high income earners) are just tired of reading how bad we are and are searching for and entertaining new news outlets that are more balanced in their COMMENTARY. I don’t mind a balanced rendition of the news but your AJC is just do damning of the folks like me who actually produce. Cynthia, I just don’t think you understand really how the world and economics work. This is not a “class” statement but merely the truth and if if you will slow down just a tad and ponder it– you may see the light: The over whelming majority of all taxes are paid by the top 2% of wage earners (just for fun let’s say the top 5%). So those of us who risk everything – provide the jobs – are the ones paying nearly all the taxes. WE ARE IT. By removing or lowering our taxes we will provide more jobs. Really it is simple Econ 101. If you will promote more balanced COMMENTARY I bet your circulation will reduce its down fall. That too is Econ 101.

Good Grief

December 6th, 2010
2:58 pm

Kamchak -
I have no doubt that if the bill were to make it thorugh committee it would be so heavily altered that it would never measure up to any previous expectation.

As for your comment about being ‘conned’ into buying the two Fair Tax books (I do not own either, by the way), did you mean along the same lines as those who were ‘conned’ into buying “Dreams from my Father” and “The Audacity of Hope?” Or is a person only ‘conned’ into buying books by authors that are conservative?

Tired of BS

December 6th, 2010
2:59 pm

Well why not try a tax on all dark haired minority women with college degrees, or all blonde headed women with boob jobs, or body builders with bald heads, or young black men with saggy pants and tatts, or anyone who wears anything with a bulldog on it, or any woman driving a car she can’t afford with a cell phone in her ear, or anyone over the age of 40 who dared to have a child or children who will likely become a productive citizen….. oh wait a minute….. scratch the last one….. they already do that don’t they.

CT….. sometimes I read your opinion pieces and say….. just damn…… how stupid!

Billybob

December 6th, 2010
3:01 pm

Tucker,
COWARD……RACIST……BIGOT……SOCIALIST/MARXIST SYMPATHIZER……CLASS WARFARE SYMPATHIZER……that about covers it, have a nice day!

DP

December 6th, 2010
3:01 pm

Tucker…you are a fool, how much would taking every dollar from everyone who has liquid assets in excess of say $5,000,000 would bring in, huh?
I doubt it would amount to any more than $2,000,000,000,000. Find for sure before you start ranting about the rich. You are sad socialist just like your hero.

B

December 6th, 2010
3:02 pm

Cynthia,

Are you kidding me? Surely you can’t be this much of an idiot? Surely you are just yanking yet another wealth envy chain to stoke up the hits to the site. Surely…….

IF…. “If” the weathy have to pay more……” What in the hell are you talking about? IF? They DO! An inordinately HUGE amoung of the funding of this country comes from the small percentage at the top. And damn right they’re fed up about it…. Why in the world would they want to give yet even more to the corrupt, inept, lying, theiving democrats to “spread around”????? That’s just stupid. And they didn’t get to be successful by being stupid.

If there are those out there among the wealthy who think they should give more, FINE. Let them contribute all they want to. Cash, check, however they choose to pay. But how dare them or anyone else stick a proverbial gun to the heads of the successful in this country telling them that they must pay more taxes or else, damn it. Absolutely absurd.

You are sometimes absolutely unbelievable. That’s why I think most of the time, you’re tonge in cheek. ‘Cause nobody can be that damn dumb. But then again, we’re stuck with Obama for two more years and Californians just re-elected Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown—–so I guess it’s possible for you to be as stupid as you come across.

D, JD….

Welfare Check Casher

December 6th, 2010
3:03 pm

Those greedy rich folks should pay more! They just got lucky thats all! They sit up in they high rises wiping they butts with hundred dollar bills while I can barely feed my 6th baby I just had. I’m behind on my DirecTV bill and might have to get rid of my Showtime and HBO. How is that fair? All cause the rich folks won’t pay their fair share. Its only fair. The little folks in America need HBO too! How am I gonna buy my ciggies and beer if I have to pay for my own rent and food? This ain’t right I tell ya…greedy filthy rich folks…

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?

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.

T-dog

December 6th, 2010
5:16 pm

MarkV,
Have you ever been pushed into a higher tax bracket? I have. Not fun. Do you pay $2500/month in student loans. I do. Perhaps an agreement will be reached where no one will be penalized for making more money than some other people. However, at this stage you are wrong, sir.
Kamchak,
You don’t get to choose how much your Medical school education will cost you. How is this in any way similar to buying too much house? You borrow for medical school to make a difference in people’s lives, including the lives of you and your family. It is wrong to punish people for wanting to better themselves and make a difference in society. Shame on you for blaming others for not fulfilling your own financial security.

ChocoTaco

December 6th, 2010
5:18 pm

40 or 50K out of a 1 million dollar bonus is only 4 or 5 %, they’ll still be getting $950,000 or more. I think they’ll live…

atp

December 6th, 2010
5:19 pm

“that has given them so much”…typical class warfare jargon. Like they didn’t take a risk, work their tails off, spend sleepless nights away from friends and family, to build businesses and make money.

dawgs

December 6th, 2010
5:20 pm

CYNTHIA: Why don’t we have all income sent directly to the Government and then they can send us what we need ??

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
5:21 pm

You don’t get to choose how much your Medical school education will cost you.

So, someone held a gun to the heads of this couple and made them pursue this education?

Some People are stupid

December 6th, 2010
5:21 pm

T-dog

1. I find it funny how Kamchak used the same argument relating to people who bought too much house(you bought too much eductaion) and you shunned it. But let it be about houses I have a feeling you would go the other way
2. As a CPA, you are absolutley wrong. The system is designed to be progressive,i.e. you pay rate on incremental dollars. Thats why the scale is XXX + 15% over X. So in your scenario, you would actually only be taxed at the highest rate on the 1k. Even then, if thats what you make, once you factor in you and your wifes personal exemption, you won’t be anywhere close to 250k. you would actually have to make about 270k to hit the 35% range.
3. What interest rate do you have on those loans. You will pay 900k over the life of them. Me thinks you are exaggerating.

Some People are stupid

December 6th, 2010
5:23 pm

I also like how everyone assumes to make money you have to work countless hours, spend time away from family, and all that other stuff..

Mark Zuckerberg founded facebook, he’s a billionaire…don’t think he worked to hard…

atp

December 6th, 2010
5:23 pm

If things were “given” to the rich, why isn’t everyone rich? I mean, wealth is obviously just given away right? I am sure all those people living on government welfare just forgot to send in the right paperwork, right?

Cynthia thinks like a second grader, so i will quote from a movie that is about her level of thinking: “There is no greater sacrifice than someone else’s” – Madagascar.

atp

December 6th, 2010
5:24 pm

@Some People,

Cool, you just showed us that you know nothing about Mark or starting a company from scratch. Please take your entitlement ticket and sit with the other Democrats. When we conservatives get done with handling the important things in life, we will get to your welfare.

ronald

December 6th, 2010
5:26 pm

People like Cynthia aren’t that much different than the thugs who rob liquor stores or gas stations. Those thieves attempt to hide their identity while they steal, whereas Cynthia is proud to proclaim to the world that she supports stealing from wealthy Americans via wealth distribution and by forcing them to pay a higher tax rate than everyone else. There is a special place in hell for those who steal, regardless of which form the theft takes…

Browncoat

December 6th, 2010
5:26 pm

CT, there are many great comments on here. I see you so far have made a short response to one……Interesting.

sally

December 6th, 2010
5:34 pm

The participants’ on this blog are more proof that american exceptionalism is a myth…

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
5:37 pm

T-dog: If you want to comment on the tax bills now discussed, you should at least get your facts straight. Whether you have been “pushed to a higher tax bracket” by the current tax law is immaterial in this case. Again, check your facts and do not make a fool of yourself.

Chris

December 6th, 2010
5:38 pm

Has anyone done a report on what the tax brackets on ‘the rich’ would have to be to make up for the budget deficit (todays and future entitlements)? That would really help to bolster the argument for higher taxes on the rich, but I guess it seems easier to use characitures of ‘the rich’ to really not add anything of significance or seriousness to the fact that the federal government spends way too much money since they try to buy votes year in year out through their ‘programs’. Reading some of these posts, I gather the left’s view of ‘the rich’ (BMWs, multiple houses, designer clothes) is about as accurate as the right’s view of the poor (6 kids with 2 on the way).

Gary

December 6th, 2010
5:40 pm

While I believe the government has way too much money as it is, these tax increases would not even affect the richest, people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett only pay about 15% taxes on their dividends and capital gains. Yet they are begging for these higher taxes. Why, Because they will not be paying higher taxes. Why don’t they take the billions they give to charity and give it to their favorite charity, the government? Oh, by the way, Cynthia, if you want to pay higher taxes, write a check and send it in.

las cruces

December 6th, 2010
5:40 pm

“Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” Matthew 5:3

Major bummer for all you rich pricks…

Chris

December 6th, 2010
5:42 pm

@Some People are stupid – perhaps you have personal knowledge of Mark Zuckerburg’s work habits. I’m fairly certain he didn’t just go to godaddy.com and register facebook.com to become a billionaire.

Chris

December 6th, 2010
5:46 pm

@Kamchak 5:21 – what an ignorant post. I bet you argue that medical costs are too high while saying (paraphrasing) ’screw them medical students – they chose that path so let em pay for it’. Everything should just be free right? Guess what ’sport’ – the more doctors – the more access – the lesser costs. Supply and demand.

casual observer

December 6th, 2010
5:48 pm

If you believe the money the government steals from the citizens of this country is going to be used to decrease our deficit or debt……you are simply dumb That”s all there is to it. To listen to Libs or Socialist who think it”s okay to take a millionare’s (or any citizens who has earned it’s) money and distribute it to their pet project is sickening. 2012 is coming fast. Lets get all Libs out of the decision making proccess in this country.

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
5:57 pm

I bet you argue that medical costs are too high while saying (paraphrasing) ’screw them medical students – they chose that path so let em pay for it’.

No, I was pointing out that many on this blog, on a daily basis, said that people who bought too much house made a choice all the while enjoying (assumed and unsubstantiated) extravagances, and should now accept responsibility for that decision. Does this not include a decision about schooling?

Everything should just be free right?

No.

Contractor

December 6th, 2010
5:59 pm

Some People are stupid,

Along with the couple other post that have basically taken you down a few notches, I agree that it doesn’t take blood, sweat, and tears to make a fortune in this country, but it does take intelligence, time, and effort. If they are intelligent enough to make their millions, it shouldn’t make a difference if they did it digging ditches, or made it creating Silly Bands or something so simple as that. The fact is that taking more money from someone who has more is not ethical. It’s the principle of the matter here, not what YOU or Tucker consider right.

Alt Min

December 6th, 2010
6:16 pm

Some People are stupid … yes they are!

I dare you to share with MZ your thoughts on how he didn’t obtain his money through hard work. Just as those of you who have never been close to the “wealthy” tax bracket, alternative minimum, etc. have a clue what is done with that money. Old timer @ 5:12 is a perfect example of what most “wealthy” folks do with their money. I have personally put aside enough money not to need SS or Medicare, but yet I still have that money taken from me by the government. Bonus income is taxed near 50%, which means hard work above and beyond is valued less that average performance through regular pay in the eyes of the government?

PS Stop using the uber-wealthy as examples of those “rich” who want to fund/funnel more to the government. That dog don’t hunt!

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
6:17 pm

Contractor: The way you argue shows, to put it politely, simple-mindedness of political slogans. To put it to a test, all it requires is this: All countries with a capitalistic system (and perhaps even those with a not-capitalistic one) use a progressive tax code. Do you agree with that form of a tax code or not?

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
6:33 pm

MarkV
In the US, there are 6 tax brackets, ranging from 10% to 35%.

We have a progressive system, already. But talking about that doesn’t give liberals anything to be angry about and without liberal anger, there is little they can offer. It’s not like logic is their strong suite.

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
6:39 pm

Nothing Is Free: Didn’ I write that ALL countries with a capitalistic system use a progressive tax system? Does that not include the US? What are you arguing about?

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
6:39 pm

MarkV

- -simple-mindedness of political slogans.- -

Huh?

Are you trying to say that he is more gullible than most as a victim of political slogans?

Did you vote for the politician who ran on the slogan of Hope and Change?

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
6:45 pm

Nothing Is Free: Changing subject?
What I was saying was that arguments that are basically political slogans are not really arguments at all, because they lack any substance.

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
6:48 pm

Chris

- -I gather the left’s view of ‘the rich’ (BMWs, multiple houses, designer clothes) is about as accurate as the right’s view of the poor (6 kids with 2 on the way).- -

I just returned from a third world country. The “poor” in the US are not even close to poor.

We are the only country in the world where the people with the most extreme weight problems are poor people.

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
6:51 pm

MarkV

Maybe you can help me out. I took both posts from a single poet of yours, but you claim I am changing the subject. Perhaps that should tell you tons about the “direction” of your own posts.

phil

December 6th, 2010
6:53 pm

But, if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially members of his household, he has denied his faith and is worse than a nonbeliever.

1 Timothy 5:8

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
6:55 pm

Nothing Is Free: I will be glad to help you out:

“Did you vote for the politician who ran on the slogan of Hope and Change?”

What has that to do with what I hhave written in any of my posts?

MarkV

December 6th, 2010
6:59 pm

Nothing Is Free: “I just returned from a third world country. The “poor” in the US are not even close to poor. ”

This is another single-minded argument of the right. Of course poverty is relative. Would you agree with the richest guy in a thirld world country, who can have anything he wants, that he is poor because his absolute wealth is much smaller than that of the rich people in the US?

Some People are stupid

December 6th, 2010
6:59 pm

atp-
Please don’t get mad at me because Mark Zuckerberg said it was easy.(came from his biography)
As far as entitlement, I’m pretty sure I make more than you and probably pay more taxes than you. In fact, how many CPA’s you know receive entitlements….I wonder why Ga is so messed up..

Chris-
As I said to atp, he said it was easy, not me. Really, all it takes is a good idea and some people skills and you can become fairly wealthy. Or hell, even good use of psychology. Case in point, CT, she post something on a blog and yall eat it up, posting all types of comments, which only makes her more valuable to the ajc because of all the hits she receives, but yall would much rather get your rocks off by telling Cynthia how wrong she is than to realize she is basically playin yall like fiddles.

Contractor-
I’m sorry. Where in my post did I say it was right. Are you reading what I type and then just fill in the blanks for what you think I might say. Have you asked me my opinion, because if you haven’t, how do you know what I think is fair. Besides that, I do agree with you that it doesn’t take blood ,sweat and tears, just a good vision and some intelligence.

And finally Alt Min-
Uhmm, I’m in the higher tax bracket…small business owner…thats kinda why I know this farce about tax rates affect small business is laughable….and I didn’t know that there was a qualifier on who I can talk about. You guys kinda make it seem as all small business owners are conservatives and and unemployed are democrats..what range of person income wise do you want me to use as an example. Please define a range so I know who’s off limit.

On a sidenote I used MZ because he said it was easy. Bill Gates would probably say it was easy. Hedge Fund managers would probably say it was easy. In this day and age, accumulating some semblance of wealth can be easy. Look at the dot.com age, the guy who invented stamps.com is a millionaire. I’m not saying it doesn’t take hard work, but MZ was a college student,I’m sure he wasn’t worried about time away from his family while coming up with a billion dollar idea…quit w/ all this hyperbole

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
7:10 pm

MarkV

You were criticizing another poster saying that he was simple minded as to political slogans and then you made the comment that if it is a political slogan, it can’t have any substance. It can’t if the slogan is Hope and Change. I have always considered that slogan either a slap in the face to Obama’s supporters or an obvious sign of our declining educational system.

Amazingly enough, for Obama, it was really all he had. What would he have said:

Let the community organizer lead our military?

Let the college professor try out that socialism he has been teaching?

Let Obama spread that love and understanding that he has learned from Bill Aires and Jeremiah Wright?

Let’s hope that he doesn’t treat our country like his father treated him?

But of course, for a great number of his supporters, the most effective slogan would have been:

He’s Black. (Not really, but he does hate his “typical white person” grandmother who raised him when his own parents had more important things to do.)

James

December 6th, 2010
7:12 pm

some people are stupid- nice diatribe- maybe need to research the founding of facebook- he worked pretty damn hard, took risk, and sold into a scalable marketplace. most folks miss the basic issue which is what do you get for your payments. I would say the upper tax bracket is paying for lobster and receiving rabbit turds. raise the tax rate on those over 1 mill and expand the tax base. enable the great american worker- we are truly going on 10 years with no leadership

barking frog

December 6th, 2010
7:13 pm

The US is probably the only Country in the World
where sloth and greed create success and solutions
are invented for nonexistent problems. Ain’t it Grand.
Oh, and the rich whine more than the poor about money.

Some People are stupid

December 6th, 2010
7:16 pm

James-
Again, those were his words not mine.

Billybob

December 6th, 2010
7:19 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?”

Is that the best you have Tucker? WEAK! Try this, click your heels together three times and repeat after me….there’s no place like socialism, there’s no place like redistribution, there’s no place like class warfare. Hope that helps you a little bit….socialist.

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
7:21 pm

MarkV

- -Would you agree with the richest guy in a thirld world country, who can have anything he wants, that he is poor because his absolute wealth is much smaller than that of the rich people in the US?- -

No I wouldn’t agree with that.

By that statement, I would bet that you have never been to a third world country. We have poor people who have to still watch a CRT television instead of a flat screen, HD set. The poor people I just left live in corrugated boxes with dirt floors and have a small meal every few days. No electricity. No running water. A man with a car is considered a very rich and powerful person, even if the car barely runs.

It isn’t a single minded slogan, used by conservatives. It’s a fact.

And of course the people in the states that are so poor that they have to receive almost a grand a month for food from the government always have the opportunity to improve their situation.

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
7:24 pm

barking frog

- -The US is probably the only Country in the World
where sloth and greed create success- -

No. Sloth and greed creates prosperity all over the world.

- – solutions are invented for nonexistent problems.- -

Are you talking about the Health Bill or Cap and Trade?

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
7:29 pm

Billybob

- -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?”- -

So using that logic, what was the reason for the Health Bill?

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
7:33 pm

Everyone that is complaining about giving the rich a break on taxes might want to consider how many industries have left our shores.

Democrats love to hate. They REALLY love to hate private industries, but oddly enough, can’t seem to understand why industries have left the country.

It reminds me of the abusive husband who just can’t understand why his wife left him.

barking frog

December 6th, 2010
7:36 pm

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
7:24 pm
Are you talking about the Health Bill or Cap and Trade?
—————————————-
both. and the ipad ,ipod, facebook, myspace, vitamin water
and Congress……..and on and on and on, glad to see you
escaped again….

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
7:45 pm

barking frog

I tried an ipad. I don’t see it.

I do like the ipod and I love my kindle. I’m averaging about a book a week. I’m really enjoying “All the trouble in the World, The lighter side” by PJ O’Rourke. Funny as hell. Written in 1994. Not much has changed since 1994.

It was very warm and i hate this cold weather, but it certainly smells a lot better.

barking frog

December 6th, 2010
7:53 pm

The kindle is bezos’ means to world domination. He is building
two distribution centers in Chattanooga…

William C Smith

December 6th, 2010
7:53 pm

I have responded already but I have a remark. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I consider myself an American. I am now over 60 years old an as I look back at my life I see certain changes. My father nor my uncles never attended a university. They taught my cousins and myself the value of education. We all received our diplomas and then taught our children the value of education. They have all received diplomas also. I now have younger friends that can not afford to either send there children to college or trade school. Many of there children don’t want an education or to learn a trade. Until people in our society decide to advance themselves by rolling up the sleves and going to work it will never get better. Also, at the same time until America shows more compassion for one another the system will never get better. The whole tax argument is no more than hatred between people based strictly on financial status. Our freedom was won by a group of rich property owners willing to lose all for our freedom . Also, at the same time the poor saw a chance for advancement in a free society and where willing to die for that cause. George Washington when given a chance for complete power choose to ride back to Mount Vernon and become a farmer.

"Walking Dead" Extra

December 6th, 2010
8:17 pm

No matter what the regulars say tonight, Obama just acknowledged The Tea Party and made his first course correction. Bravo Mr. President !!

Combine this with The Deficit Commission and finally we have some legitimate stuff to blog about.

The haters on both sides despise free speech and discourse. They only want to smash and burn and promise utopia in return.

Don’t Tread On Me !!

War Eagle

December 6th, 2010
8:29 pm

Cynthia, I though you were smarter than ask a question like that???
Ans. the economy was huge under Clinton because of Wall Streert. Remember the IPO`s, hedge funds and so-called housing market, plus he had a Republican Congress to make deals with him…IN THOSE DAYS THERE WAS NO moveon.com, Huffington or Tucker blogs to radically depose the Obama presidency.
This is reason Bush tax cuts stay in place across the board to energize the economy

Kamchak

December 6th, 2010
8:52 pm

sid

December 6th, 2010
9:16 pm

conservative christians are vile excrement

Billybob

December 6th, 2010
9:30 pm

at least they will oppose the socialists trolling washington these days kammy

Billybob

December 6th, 2010
9:32 pm

Hey Tucker,
If you had it your way I guess the new robber baron would be called barack hussein obama…mmm mmm mmmmm!

Billyboy

December 6th, 2010
9:40 pm

Now, now, Cynthia you are not really as dumb as you appear in this article. Please tell the people the truth and not hide behind this garbage, or, are you really that dumb?

chicken poop

December 6th, 2010
9:42 pm

gw’s malfeasance followed by the greedy right-wingers money grab has put the last nail in the coffin of this once great democracy all hail china are new daddy.

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
10:05 pm

chicken poop

The perfect name for you.

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
10:06 pm

sid

- -conservative christians are vile excrement- -

That’s what is known as bigotry. And quite overt.

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
10:08 pm

sid

And just think: replace the word Christian with Jew and you would practically be a NAZI.

You must be very proud.

sid

December 6th, 2010
10:14 pm

nothing is free, replace your brain with a fart and you might have a cogent thought…

Nothing Is Free

December 6th, 2010
10:24 pm

sid

Ahhh. An intelectual.

I’ll bet you were hell in the 7th grade.

Union

December 6th, 2010
10:50 pm

wealth envy is pathetic.. we are truly the blameless society.. those who dont have.. are taught that its not their fault.. and ctucker is at the pulpit..

Hootinanny Yum Yum

December 6th, 2010
10:59 pm

OMG! What would happen if African Americans accepted responsibility for their actions…

Why should they?

ATLANTA – Some of Atlanta’s leading African-American preachers fired a multi-barreled blast on Monday at the now criminal investigation into cheating on standardized tests in some city public schools.

They called it a “costly witch hunt”.

“We expect our prosecutors to go after criminals and not our educators,” said Dr. Richard Cobble, President of the Concerned Black Clergy.

He and more than 30 others blasted the investigation as “disturbing, reprehensible and misguided”.

They leveled one barrel at Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard who launched the criminal probe last week by appointing former Georgia Attorney General Michael Bowers and former DeKalb County District Attorney Bob Wilson as special prosecutors.

Both were tapped by Governor Sonny Perdue last summer to look into potential cheating on CRCT test answer sheets.

“Paul Howard has been misguided and has joined the forces of those who dare to destroy public education,” claimed Rev. Cobble.

The ministers leveled another barrel at Gov. Perdue, accusing him of trying to take over Atlanta’s Public School system.

And they leveled yet another barrel at the Atlanta School Board for its recent internal power struggle that ended up in court and still threatens the system’s accreditation.

The only ones spared by the ministers’ broadside were outgoing School Superintendent Beverly Hall, who they called a scapegoat, and teachers caught up in the scandal.

“We admit some cheating went on; ain’t nobody up here saying ain’t been no cheating, but we got to find a resolution that moves us forward and not backwards,” said Concerned Black Clergy member Rev. Timothy Mcdonald.

He joined other ministers in calling potential criminal charges too extreme for what happened.

They suggested that any teachers or administrators who changed test scores should be reprimanded or suspended instead.

They claim the root of the problem is the No Child Left Behind Act which they say puts too much emphasis on testing and encourages cheating.

“These teachers, even those who cheated, let’s face it, they were trying to help,” Rev. McDonald claimed.

The ministers said they plan to meet with District Attorney Paul Howard later in the week.

A spokesperson for Howard’s office told 11Alive News he will meet with them, but that the time and date haven’t been set.

Howard’s office said he refused to comment on the pastors’ allegations.

So far, Gov. Perdue has also refused to comment on the ministers’ claims.

Meanwhile, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools plans to meet with Atlanta Public School officials later this week to discuss how recent infighting by School Board members and the cheating scandal could endanger the system’s accreditation.

Loss of accreditation could threaten college hopes for thousands of Atlanta Public School students.

Fleabyte

December 7th, 2010
6:21 am

Seeing both sides argue this issue is akin to two factions arguing over the best way to murder a puppy.

Bob

December 7th, 2010
7:08 am

OMG ! Atlanta’s long battle with the Atlanta Eagle club is finally over, and the city is $1 million poorer for it.
Does that racist tea party run Atlanta now ? How would a progressive city like Atlanta abuse their gay residents. Dems crack me up, they abuse gays and make them lay on a dirty floor, nationally they give us policies like DADT. But watch out for the tea party people, they are racists !

dave

December 7th, 2010
7:27 am

bob’s such a fag…

Nothing Is Free

December 7th, 2010
8:38 am

Bob

You are laying on a dirty floor?

Well, get up!

Nothing Is Free

December 7th, 2010
8:50 am

C Tucker

OMG Looks like the rich won’t be paying more.

Your boy folded.

GaDawgInDC

December 7th, 2010
9:13 am

The wealthy already pay more..Get off your high horse cynthia…Repent, trust Jesus, not oprah…

Georgian

December 7th, 2010
9:52 am

Well, this is a mute point now ain’t it? Tax cuts to be extended.

Martin the Calvinist

December 7th, 2010
10:19 am

First of all, income belongs to the American people, not the gov’t.

Secondly, when are politicians going to have the courage to implement real spending cuts. Raising more revenue isn’t going to cut it to reduce 13 and a half trillion deficit.

Midground

December 7th, 2010
11:29 am

@Martin the Calvinist

Raising more revenue alone will not suffice to trim the deficit alone but it sure will help. It means we will not have to put costs of operations on our children’s credit card. It means govt initiatives and programs will be paid for-pay-as-you-go !!! Yes, I also agree that there should have serious spending cuts. Not just symbolic and farcical cuts like earmarks, I means considerable and effiicient cuts like military spending, foreign aid, Medicare amd tweeks at Social security !!! We all have to make sacrifices at this point. We marked the 69th anniversary of Pearl harbor, lets remember that it is the sacrifice of our grand parents ( parents for others) who made this country what it is today, both militarily and financially Buck up America !!!!

ralph

December 7th, 2010
12:49 pm

May I quote the late great Marvin Gaye:
Money, we make it
Fore we see it you take it
Oh, make you wanna holler
The way they do my life
Make me wanna holler
The way they do my life
This ain’t livin’, This ain’t livin’
No, no baby, this ain’t livin’
No, no, no
Inflation no chance
To increase finance
Bills pile up sky high
Send that boy off to die