Taxes on the rich are actually good for the economy.

[Danno 1,228]

Yeap, I'm all for soaking the super rich.

I'm also all for a mega property tax on McMansions. If they want a 15,000 sq ft home, they should pay something to counter the resources used to heater and cool a home of such size. The county receiving the extra property tax could use it for "green" purposes. All this and I'm not a "green" monger at all, but I realize these huge homes are total BS.

Now that was a good one.

[Heracles 417]

The biggest problem with this article is that it assumes that all these problems are directly because of tax percentages.Its a real biased article that only points out facts that try to help support this no name blogger from Eugene.

I will have to disagree with Haza and say Bill this is a horrible article.

Have a look at the nations with the highest GDP per capita. Now look into their tax rates for the rich. The middle class and poor are screwed here, while the mega rich get a free ride.

I am sure someone will show me a chart which illustrates how the rich pay more tax in terms of actual dollars; however, when you consider what they earn, they pay no tax. What the article discusses is which tax approach is most beneficial for America and Americans; that means you and me. Anyone who is mega rich wouldn’t be on VJ. American is not a third world country nor should it become one; where the rich are mega rich and the poor are dirt poor. Most people certainly do not want it to end up that way. 5% of the country is mega rich while the rest are becoming poorer daily. The wealthy on the other hand benefit from the dirt cheap labour pool. In my experience, middle class America is quite poor when compared to that of other developed countries. It's about time the 95% stand up and say enough is enough. Stop buying the rubbish about taxes for the rich stifling the economy.

Guess how much tax someone earning under $6K pays in AUS? big fat zero. Over here, this same person would actually be asked to pay tax. Their tax rate for the rich is reasonable and high.

End result

Median property price: $550K+.

Median salary (as of July 09): $52.1K USD.

Unemployment rate: 5.5%

Mega Rich: Australia's not interested in being a tax haven for the mega rich.

Quality of living: ranked top 5 in the world

So there you go, Australia is living proof the article is spot on. At least people there don't have to work two or three jobs, simply to make ends meet. It is also the reason Australians cities are constantly ranked the best and most liveable in the world. As the article states, the middle-class have more money to be spend, which goes straight back into the economy; which is then allocated towards improving their cities and towns; which generates jobs and so on. End result: low unemployment, highest living standards (almost first) in the world, long life span, low crime and excellent quality of life.

I'll take that over tax cuts for the mega rich any day. Any American with a drop of common sense worth under $10 million should too.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The biggest problem with this article is that it assumes that all these problems are directly because of tax percentages.Its a real biased article that only points out facts that try to help support this no name blogger from Eugene.

I will have to disagree with Haza and say Bill this is a horrible article.

Not good enough. Show us how and where he is wrong, and which of his conclusions are unsupported by facts.

Well for starters how he tries to associate the bubble bursts to the tax percentage. In 87 we had a burst, which had nothing to do with tax percentages, theres been a lot of speculation to what it was but how much the rich were being taxed was not one of them. By the end of 87 we had recovered and the economy was barely affected. So from 1982 to 2000 our economy was doing pretty good until we had the dot com bust which had nothing to do with tax percentages.

The writer assumes that the billionaire will have one or two million less in his bank account if we increase taxes. I disagree I think usually the billionaire will have just as much in savings but wont invest as much. Either way it really isnt a good argument to why we should tax the rich at ungodly amounts. It does affect us at the bottom too.

So, at least in the case of the Dot.com boom and bust, speculation was the major contributing factor, not the top marginal tax rates? Perhaps overspeculation is at least in part the cause of the boom and bust cycle. But, that begs the question, if there is less capital available for speculation, would that not also smooth out the boom and bust cycle?

[Heracles 417]

Many of these billionaires don't store their money here, making other countries rich anyway.

Supposedly that's going to come to an end Overseas Bank Accounts More Vulnerable to IRS Scrutiny

We'll see. A lot of these guys are pretty clever.

Is that because they are rich, or are they rich, because they are clever?

When you are a billionaire you don't have to be clever. You can pay somebody else to be clever. A good many of them are rich in part because they are clever though of course.

These guys have teams of top notch financial analysts, personal financial advisors, tax experts and accountants; they will find a way. They key is to ensure they pay their tax the second they earn it. Something every other developed country does well.

It's also not about punishing them either but they should pay their fair share, especially when it benefits the country that allows them to accrue such wealth in the first place. It's not as if the rich are off fighting the wars or in the military. They sit back and get kids out of flint or small towns to die to protect their wealth. Anyway, the majority should set the rules rather than the few. The extreme minority that are megarich have been calling the shots for too long now. They live in extravagant communities while the middle class and poor generally live run down suburbs, towns or even entire cities.

Coming from Aus, where this is definitely not the case, it's clear as day to me. However, it's also clear to me that many here, particularity those who have not traveled, think that having run down cities, boarded up towns, ghettos and earning a meager salary is the norm everywhere. Which is the con of the century in America. I don't know how the rich and greedy have pulled it off here, but sadly, they certianly have. Good honest people are being exploited and they don;t even know it.

Edited August 29, 2009 by haza

[Heracles 417]

This con is also a good reason for the dog-eats-dog attitude that is prevalent in communities, especially cities, here. Something that obviously grew, like a plague, over the past few decades. IE What's in it for me? or I don't care.. Where any form of compassion or team work is branded socialism. When, a CEO is fired that walks away with a $30 million payout, this is acceptable. To the contrary, when a company squanders a workers entire retirement, like Enron, that's just business. No that is freagin stupid, nothing else to it.

Lets not even bring the religious ramifications of this. When I see religious folk support corporations or jungle rules and are against community projects, that is where I realize how powerful this con is. Religion is usually a bedrock of a person and their beliefs, almost impossible to break. Yet somehow, these ruthless rich bastards have managed to infiltrate this and make compassion out to be the bad guy. yes, the same compassion Jesus preached about from day one. Seriously, it's truly amazing.

Edited August 29, 2009 by haza

[_Simpson_ 250]

The biggest problem with this article is that it assumes that all these problems are directly because of tax percentages.Its a real biased article that only points out facts that try to help support this no name blogger from Eugene.

I will have to disagree with Haza and say Bill this is a horrible article.

Not good enough. Show us how and where he is wrong, and which of his conclusions are unsupported by facts.

Well for starters how he tries to associate the bubble bursts to the tax percentage. In 87 we had a burst, which had nothing to do with tax percentages, theres been a lot of speculation to what it was but how much the rich were being taxed was not one of them. By the end of 87 we had recovered and the economy was barely affected. So from 1982 to 2000 our economy was doing pretty good until we had the dot com bust which had nothing to do with tax percentages.

The writer assumes that the billionaire will have one or two million less in his bank account if we increase taxes. I disagree I think usually the billionaire will have just as much in savings but wont invest as much. Either way it really isnt a good argument to why we should tax the rich at ungodly amounts. It does affect us at the bottom too.

So, at least in the case of the Dot.com boom and bust, speculation was the major contributing factor, not the top marginal tax rates? Perhaps overspeculation is at least in part the cause of the boom and bust cycle. But, that begs the question, if there is less capital available for speculation, would that not also smooth out the boom and bust cycle?

Well then that all hinges on if you think that money is better in the governments hand than yours. The government having to much of our money causes its own set of problems. Since that money has been in our hands I think we done pretty good in the last two decades.

[Heracles 417]

Well then that all hinges on if you think that money is better in the governments hand than yours. The government having to much of our money causes its own set of problems. Since that money has been in our hands I think we done pretty good in the last two decades.

If spent poorly it can have problems but I cannot exactly build a bridge or improve my town or city myself. Suitable government investments leads to great improvement, which can easily be seen with a trip to AUS or using google streetview.

Let me not post pics of half of the US towns and even cities. Someone foreign will think it's picture from some sort of 2nd world country. People need to step out of the governments way and actually encourage them to do their job, However, I realize this concept is completely alien for many here. Especially when government automatically means bad in their mind and no iron clad evidence will ever change that view.

What other country votes in politicians based on three worded slogans, charisma or song and dance, then turns around and distrusts the government they themselves voted in. I'll tell ya, only in America.

Edited August 29, 2009 by haza

[_Simpson_ 250]

The biggest problem with this article is that it assumes that all these problems are directly because of tax percentages.Its a real biased article that only points out facts that try to help support this no name blogger from Eugene.

I will have to disagree with Haza and say Bill this is a horrible article.

Have a look at the nations with the highest GDP per capita. Now look into their tax rates for the rich. The middle class and poor are screwed here, while the mega rich get a free ride.

I am sure someone will show me a chart which illustrates how the rich pay more tax in terms of actual dollars; however, when you consider what they earn, they pay no tax. What the article discusses is which tax approach is most beneficial for America and Americans; that means you and me. Anyone who is mega rich wouldn’t be on VJ. American is not a third world country nor should it become one; where the rich are mega rich and the poor are dirt poor. Most people certainly do not want it to end up that way. 5% of the country is mega rich while the rest are becoming poorer daily. The wealthy on the other hand benefit from the dirt cheap labour pool. In my experience, middle class America is quite poor when compared to that of other developed countries. It's about time the 95% stand up and say enough is enough. Stop buying the rubbish about taxes for the rich stifling the economy.

Guess how much tax someone earning under $6K pays in AUS? big fat zero. Over here, this same person would actually be asked to pay tax. Their tax rate for the rich is reasonable and high.

End result

Median property price: $550K+.

Median salary (as of July 09): $52.1K USD.

Unemployment rate: 5.5%

Mega Rich: Australia's not interested in being a tax haven for the mega rich.

Quality of living: ranked top 5 in the world

So there you go, Australia is living proof the article is spot on. At least people there don't have to work two or three jobs, simply to make ends meet. It is also the reason Australians cities are constantly ranked the best and most liveable in the world. As the article states, the middle-class have more money to be spend, which goes straight back into the economy; which is then allocated towards improving their cities and towns; which generates jobs and so on. End result: low unemployment, highest living standards (almost first) in the world, long life span, low crime and excellent quality of life.

I'll take that over tax cuts for the mega rich any day. Any American with a drop of common sense worth under $10 million should too.

Explain to me why it is that in the last 2 decades that we have had a great economy without taxing the top earners into oblivion. We actually lowered it from I think 70% to 28%.

[dalegg 143]

The biggest problem with this article is that it assumes that all these problems are directly because of tax percentages.Its a real biased article that only points out facts that try to help support this no name blogger from Eugene.

I will have to disagree with Haza and say Bill this is a horrible article.

Have a look at the nations with the highest GDP per capita. Now look into their tax rates for the rich. The middle class and poor are screwed here, while the mega rich get a free ride.

I am sure someone will show me a chart which illustrates how the rich pay more tax in terms of actual dollars; however, when you consider what they earn, they pay no tax. What the article discusses is which tax approach is most beneficial for America and Americans; that means you and me. Anyone who is mega rich wouldn’t be on VJ. American is not a third world country nor should it become one; where the rich are mega rich and the poor are dirt poor. Most people certainly do not want it to end up that way. 5% of the country is mega rich while the rest are becoming poorer daily. The wealthy on the other hand benefit from the dirt cheap labour pool. In my experience, middle class America is quite poor when compared to that of other developed countries. It's about time the 95% stand up and say enough is enough. Stop buying the rubbish about taxes for the rich stifling the economy.

Guess how much tax someone earning under $6K pays in AUS? big fat zero. Over here, this same person would actually be asked to pay tax. Their tax rate for the rich is reasonable and high.

End result

Median property price: $550K+.

Median salary (as of July 09): $52.1K USD.

Unemployment rate: 5.5%

Mega Rich: Australia's not interested in being a tax haven for the mega rich.

Quality of living: ranked top 5 in the world

So there you go, Australia is living proof the article is spot on. At least people there don't have to work two or three jobs, simply to make ends meet. It is also the reason Australians cities are constantly ranked the best and most liveable in the world. As the article states, the middle-class have more money to be spend, which goes straight back into the economy; which is then allocated towards improving their cities and towns; which generates jobs and so on. End result: low unemployment, highest living standards (almost first) in the world, long life span, low crime and excellent quality of life.

I'll take that over tax cuts for the mega rich any day. Any American with a drop of common sense worth under $10 million should too.

Explain to me why it is that in the last 2 decades that we have had a great economy without taxing the top earners into oblivion. We actually lowered it from I think 70% to 28%.

I'm thinking the word deficit is going to pop up here.

[nowhereman 1]

I can't get over the fact that the poor working slobs are the most vocal group when it comes to resisting higher taxes for the rich. I doubt the rich really care because they know that they will find loopholes if taxes are raised.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I agree somewhat but the rich pay most of the taxes now and they can pay a bit more but look at other things. The rich buy bigger houses yes and they pay a lot more in property taxes. Since they have large houses they need to hire people to take care of these houses and that is jobs. They usually buy more high end things and that means jobs. (Remember when during Carter that the 10% percent luxury taxes on yachts went into affect it destroyed a very lucrative industry and threw many out of work.)

They also just don't look to park their wealth but want to invest their money and many businesses gets financed. These businesses tend to hire the majority of workers in this country. They also tend to buy a lot of bonds that finance communities and departments. And of course they tend to be very generous to charities. Over all the rich get there by being producers and producers do tend to need workers. Workers tend to spend their money and that fuels more jobs.

Of course there are some rich that tend to hoard but have never looked at the percentages that do this but I think they are a small percentage.

The government on the other hand are ran by politicians and their sole aim is to be powerful. To be powerful they need to stay in office for awhile so they can get those choice committee assignments and bring home the bacon. They do this by promising to go along and get along. They also care less about spending as this will mean more money that could be used to fund projects and projects mean power to the ones that can ok who get the projects and so on. We know the government has never once ever been able to run anything in a judicious and frugal manner (except when downsizing the military) so they yearly can't keep their hands off anything.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Go ahead and tax the rich, just don't dare tax Bosco the Burro!

[_Simpson_ 250]

If spent poorly it can have problems but I cannot exactly build a bridge or improve my town or city myself. Suitable government investments leads to great improvement, which can easily be seen with a trip to AUS or using google streetview.

The paragraph say alot of nothing. Of course the money needs to be spent wisely. There is a certain degree in which the government needs to intervene. What percentage that is the question?

Let me not post pics of half of the US towns and even cities. Someone foreign will think it's picture from some sort of 2nd world country. People need to step out of the governments way and actually encourage them to do their job, However, I realize this concept is completely alien for many here. Especially when government automatically means bad in their mind and no iron clad evidence will ever change that view.

This statement is just false most of our cities are in very good condition.I have been alot of places here in the states. You are just going to try to focus on the ghettos or bad neighborhoods, theres a bigger picture here. We have been a great nation for many years because we allow the citizens to have more of there money, and thats how I want it, further more thats how America wants it. Why does every topic with you turn into you telling people how great your nation is and how flawed America is, its getting old.

What other country votes in politicians based on three worded slogans, charisma or song and dance, then turns around and distrusts the government they themselves voted in. I'll tell ya, only in America.

More of the same my country is better than yours nonsense. I gotta say its been a good 34 years for me here in the USA. I came from a poor family but have always had opportunity. Point being is that this America sucks attitude you always display isnt going to fly with me, I know better.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The biggest problem with this article is that it assumes that all these problems are directly because of tax percentages.Its a real biased article that only points out facts that try to help support this no name blogger from Eugene.

I will have to disagree with Haza and say Bill this is a horrible article.

Not good enough. Show us how and where he is wrong, and which of his conclusions are unsupported by facts.

Well for starters how he tries to associate the bubble bursts to the tax percentage. In 87 we had a burst, which had nothing to do with tax percentages, theres been a lot of speculation to what it was but how much the rich were being taxed was not one of them. By the end of 87 we had recovered and the economy was barely affected. So from 1982 to 2000 our economy was doing pretty good until we had the dot com bust which had nothing to do with tax percentages.

The writer assumes that the billionaire will have one or two million less in his bank account if we increase taxes. I disagree I think usually the billionaire will have just as much in savings but wont invest as much. Either way it really isnt a good argument to why we should tax the rich at ungodly amounts. It does affect us at the bottom too.

So, at least in the case of the Dot.com boom and bust, speculation was the major contributing factor, not the top marginal tax rates? Perhaps overspeculation is at least in part the cause of the boom and bust cycle. But, that begs the question, if there is less capital available for speculation, would that not also smooth out the boom and bust cycle?

Well then that all hinges on if you think that money is better in the governments hand than yours. The government having to much of our money causes its own set of problems. Since that money has been in our hands I think we done pretty good in the last two decades.

Is the money really in your hands, or in the hands of the clever and lucky few? Are you one of those that pays the top marginal rate? Is your net taxable income over $372,950 a year?

[Heracles 417]

Explain to me why it is that in the last 2 decades that we have had a great economy without taxing the top earners into oblivion. We actually lowered it from I think 70% to 28%.

Great economy. Half the country is bankrupt, the rest are dirt poor. Some of you here clearly rely on the indoctrinated we are the best as a measure of success. Or I assume you guys travel to 2nd and 3rd world countries and come back thinking, we are so lucky to be Americans. America is a great place for the rich. For the rest who are middle class and poor, it suxs.

As a start regarding travel, look at your airports compared to that of other developed countries. Probably the worst I have seen. Once agian this links back to the article. Which other countries have this same issue? third world countries. Whereas the highest GDP grossing countries that properly tax the rich have awesome infrastructure; because all for reasons stated in the article.

yes the rich have become even more rich over the last two decades but the middle class are still living paycheck to paycheck and struggling. They also have shitty run down infrastructure to use. the wealthy don't care, they use their private jets here. Live in their gates communities and so on. What you guys call success to many in other developed countries is considered a failure. I know how people are in this country so you will either respond by not caring about anyone else or respond with a range of excuses.

Let use LAX for example. Has not been updated since the 80's; since it was built. Whereas I can list a good 40 airports outside the US that absolutely destroy it. The first thing someone who visit from Australia comments on is the condition of LAX. Once again this goes back to the middle class and poor not having enough money to spend to improve facilities like that. Then it's coupled with repubs absolute loathing of any money spent in America, unless it comes to military. People need to wake up and realize excluding third world countries, no one looks up to the country anymore. For obvious reasons. I'm not trying to insult anyone but how can you ever improve when you have a a group of people who don't even see a problem; furthermore, actually believe the average American is doing well.

Edited August 29, 2009 by haza