Class Warfare


Okay, if we wander back to the tax levels just before Dubya lowered ’em, what would it look like?

Well, we can go look…

2001
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
15.0% $0 $27,050
27.5% $27,050 $65,550
30.5% $65,550 $136,750
35.5% $136,750 $297,350
39.1% $297,350

Not a bad rate, right?  Taxes seem reasonable and we all enjoy our money.

But look what Dubya did:

2011
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
10.0% $0 $8,500
15.0% $8,500 $34,500
25.0% $34,500 $83,600
28.0% $83,600 $174,400
33.0% $174,400 $379,150
35.0% $379,150

He lowered the rate.  By how much?

For the very poor among us, he lowered the rate by 33%.

For the very very rich among us, he lowered it by 33%.  Wait.  No?

Oh, he lowered it by 10%

And for just the very rich?  Yeah, 7%.

So, now, some of us wanna go back to the good ‘ol days when tax rates were at the levels before Dubya came around.  But……we ONLY wanna raise those rates for the very very rich.  We don’t wanna raise rates for the very very poor.

I would suggest this.  If you wanna raise the rates on the rich from 35% to 39.1%, which is a 12% increase, you should be willing to raise the lowest tax rates from 10% to 11.2%, also a 12% raise.

If you can’t do that, then you are asking one group of people to bear the burden while allowing another group of people to reap the benefits.  THAT is class warfare.

If you wanna raise taxes, then fine, raise taxes, but raise ’em.

Be a man!

Advertisements
4 comments
  1. But……we ONLY wanna raise those rates for the very very rich. We don’t wanna raise rates for the very very poor.

    Right. Context matters.

    How have the poor done in the past decade (or three)? How have the rich done?

    Here, we can see: http://www.poisonyourmind.com/2011/09/class-warfare-2/

    So, the poor are having a rough go of it, while the richest aren’t. We need to increase revenue (and long-term maybe cut spending, but certainly not in the middle of this quasi-recession), so we should return some, but not all, tax rates to where they were in the 1990s. That makes sense!

  2. The point is that the rich pay the same rates as the poor on the same level of income. The higher percentages affect only higher incomes. You have to look at total dollar amounts, not percentages. When the top 1% increase income by 291% in 30 years, the top 20% by 95%, and the bottom 60% haven’t kept up with inflation, well, it would be class war to say those who haven’t benefited should have to pay as much more as the rich.

  3. pino said:

    How have the poor done in the past decade (or three)? How have the rich done?

    And

    When the top 1% increase income by 291% in 30 years, the top 20% by 95%, and the bottom 60% haven’t kept up with inflation

    I understand that I owe you the data, and I will, but the idea that the rich have outpaced the rest of the nation using income as the only means of compensation isn’t complete. The “middle-class” has kept up when ALL forms of compensation are included.

    I know, I know, I owe you data. I’ll try tonight.

  4. Alan Scott said:

    Scott,

    Capital gains always skews this debated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: