Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Why You Should Be Screaming for Higher Taxes

By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted January 12, 2009.


Why are we so resistant to raising taxes? It's our nature. Nobody likes to give up their own money for the common good.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

US economic growth has been strongest when our taxes have been high. During World War II, then under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, our upper marginal tax rates were between 88-92%. Read those numbers again. They are astonishingly high. Those were our strongest growth years.

I never expected to say this. Pelosi's right, Obama's wrong.

Do keep in mind that we are talking about higher taxes on the richest members of society, the very richest. So, unless you're among that elite group, don't panic for personal reasons.

Keep in mind, also, that we are speaking only of income taxes.

You have certainly heard, several thousand times, that tax cuts lead to economic growth.

That's not true.

Moderate tax cuts lead to a flat economy. (The Johnson tax cuts, usually misnamed the Kennedy tax cuts, lead to 16 years of virtually no growth.)

Large tax cuts are followed by a boom in the financial sector, a bubble, and a crash. Then a recession or depression with massive bank failures. This has happened three times, in the 1920s, under Reagan, and under George W. Bush.

During a depression or recession, the point where taxes are increased marks the point when the economy begins its recovery: 1932 under Hoover, Roosevelt's second round of tax hikes in 1940, the first president Bush's tax hike, followed by the Clinton tax hike. (There's one exception. Roosevelt's tax hike of 1936, which was accompanied by cuts in government spending.)

US economic growth has been strongest when our taxes have been high. During World War II, then under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, our upper marginal tax rates were between 88-92%. Read those numbers again. They are astonishingly high. Those were our strongest growth years.

The next time we experienced strong growth -- not just in the fiscal sector, across the entire economy -- was after the Clinton tax hikes.

Why do tax hikes lead to strong economic growth?

Tax hikes usually correspond to higher government spending.

Government spends money on things that the private sector does not spend money on: physical infrastructure, social infrastructure, market infrastructure, and defense. These are the things that create a world in which doing business is possible. The worse those things are, the worse business is. The better they are, the better business is.

Rich people can't be trusted with too much money. If they have too much easy cash around, they get conned into Ponzi schemes, they go for quick money deals, they get suckered into bubbles, and then the whole economy crashes.

Can we have increased government spending without tax hikes?

No.

We can spend more than the government takes in -- if, and only if -- the following is true.

If the government is spending more than it takes in order to create an environment where more productive business is possible, then, at some point, the investment will begin to pay off and revenues will rise. If, at the same time, government spending declines (as a percentage of GDP), increased revenue will catch up with spending and the debt will be paid off.

Or -- since this is the real world, in which there are always new needs and new problems, and therefore new things to pay for -- the old debts will be caught up with and paid down, while new ones are taken on, hopefully to build new things that will pay off in turn.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, taxes, stimulus plan, income taxes

Larry Beinhart is the author of "Wag the Dog," "The Librarian," and "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin." His latest book is Salvation Boulevard. Responses can be sent to beinhart@earthlink.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Common Good??? Give me a break.
Posted by: Groovy Vegan on Jan 12, 2009 12:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If our tax dollars really went to the common good like socialized medicine and government regulation, I'd be delighted to pay taxes. But when so much of our $$$ is squandered on war and bailouts to wealthy corporations, who can blame Americans for not wanting tax increases? Even the mainstream news is reporting that cost of the Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion.

Iraq War
$4,681 per household.
$1,721 per person.
$341.4 million per day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Common Good Posted by: Jest2007
» Irrelevant Conclusion Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» Not irrelevant Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE:You said it Posted by: GrannyBgood
Scream For Higher Taxes on the Rich ... or it's Goodbye to SSI and Medicare
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 12, 2009 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Larry Beinhart if of course right on the money, so to speak. We need higher taxes to pay for programs in this economic crisis and lower taxes have always caused bubbles.

Obama is already talking tax cuts and reigning in entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This of course is right out of the Republican Playbook!

We need to expand federal responsibility until everyone is covered by Medicare and strengthen Social Security in this economic crisis.

Taxes on the well to do should be 50% over 500k and 60% over 1 million. All income should be ordinary income and loopholes closed ...

You my friends had better start screaming for higher taxes on the rich or our future is very bleak indeed.

~David Cay Johnston is a must read for anybody serious about understanding and fixing our tax system

Fiscal Therapy:

Getting the economy back on its feet, giving taxpayers a break, saving your retirement fund and your kid's college tuition? Done. And it won't cost you a penny.

by David Cay Johnston

Fiscal Therapy

David Cay Johnston (born 1948) is an investigative journalist and author. Until April 2008, he was a senior reporter with The New York Times but now works as an independent author and reporter. He is the author of best-selling books on tax and economic policy, the most recently published of which is Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With The Bill, about hidden subsidies, rigged markets, and corporate socialism. It follows his earlier book Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else, a New York Times bestseller.[1]
Johnston received the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting "for his penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms." He also won the Book of the Year award from Investigative Reporters & Editors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "our" money? Posted by: truthlover
Republican Spin Machine
Posted by: Jest2007 on Jan 12, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans have been extremely adept in selling the American public on economic policies that are not in their own best interest. Karl Rove perfected a PR machine spinning these policies, and Americans bought it hook, line and sinker. Of course, the corporate media and a Congress that capitulated to Bush's policies didn't help. After 9/11 Congress gave Bush a blank check, and here we are with a world in shambles. If this economic crisis had not come to pass, McCain/Palin would possibly have been occupying the White House because the Republicans have been able to sell the misguided notion that their party is best in dealing with security measures; and the public has bought this, forgetting the Iraq war has increased terrorism worldwide and made us less secure. We would have then been back to square one with a totally unqualified vice president and another misguided president. It is a shame that Americans have to be totally crushed before they come to the realization that the present administration has not been governing in their interest. Hopefully, something has been learned from the disasters of the Bush administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I just find it funny Posted by: democracynowiniraq
We shouldn't even have income taxes.
Posted by: monkeyamore on Jan 12, 2009 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before the corrupt central bank was put into power, there was no need for income tax at all. Congress could print and spend money on the programs they want, with sales tax used to pull it back out of circulation (for destruction) to prevent inflation.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a corrupt institution and the passing of the bill that installed it (only 3 senators were present) passed 3 days before Christmas when some corrupt politicians put it through while everyone else was away. The president at the time acknowledged what a terrible mistake he'd made. Our founding fathers were very much against central banks, Jefferson's concerns about their increasing/decreasing of the money supply can be used to bankrupt the people and reap tons of money are especially pertinent today.

Do a google video search for : "The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America."

This article is ridiculous, essentially stating "Yes we must continue to subjugate ourselves to a corrupt institution that intentionally created the problems we are experiencing for their own gain." I've lost an enormous amount of respect for this website!

END THE FED.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what you tax is important too--bring back the luxury tax
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 12, 2009 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which was instituted, I believe, c. WWII and remained in place at least until sometime in the 1950s. This time instead of placing it on costume jewelry and luggage, why not expensive jewelry, high fashion, yachts and private jets. These things are for showing how wealthy you are, how above the crowd, so tax would only enhance this.

Here in the UK, a land tax would gradually help reduce the gap between the richest and poorest. If the people who own thousands of acres were taxed to the same extent that those living in the very small houses that are the norm here, most people would only pay a pittance. Instead the richest are actually subsidized!

The self-anointed elite has been using law for criminal purposes--cheating, lying, stealing and killing. Money should never have been allowed to trump democracy and decency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pay more or spend better!
Posted by: 2thepoint on Jan 12, 2009 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paying taxes is patriotic! What asshole said that? Oh right, our bumbling VP elect!

The government has demonstrated a real talent for wasting our money time and time again. What you can get done for $100 they can get done for $1,000!

do they need more money..nope..they need better management.. Start by dumping Pelosi, Reid and Barney Franks! The GOP already purged theirs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pay more or spend better! Posted by: Jest2007
» RE: Pay more or spend better! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Pay more or spend better! Posted by: JSquercia
» Don't you support the troops? Posted by: Jest2007
Fatal Attraction
Posted by: Jest2007 on Jan 12, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that the Bushies have been attracted to this article like flies and are in full voice supporting meltdown (Reagonomics) economics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fatal Attraction Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Fatal Attraction Posted by: JSquercia
Please, just take it all ...
Posted by: peppylapew on Jan 12, 2009 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It's our nature. Nobody likes to give up their personal money for the common good."


Speak for yourself. It's not in my nature to exploit my community by withholding my money. But come on: does anyone really believe that, on balance, new taxes will be used for the "common good," when all experience leads us to expect just the opposite?

Take defense spending (please). A defense budget one-quarter the current level would actually make us safer --- by removing a potent weapon from the hands of folks like Cheney.

I can't decide if the writer of this article is being simplistic, or disingenuous. Taxes are going up, a lot --- that's inevitable given the furious pace of gov't spending. The writer reminds me of a gubernatorial candidate here who once, jokingly, suggested that if one is about to be raped, one might as well lie back and try to enjoy it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A red herring Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» What the...? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: What the...? Posted by: JSquercia
Otto .
Posted by: otto on Jan 12, 2009 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree on higher taxes for the common good, and trust the government a bit more than big business to use the money well. But practically speaking, we can cut the military budget to a great extent and make ourselves and the world a lot safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Common good? Don't waste my time.
Posted by: BeckyD on Jan 12, 2009 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I'm concerned, taxation is nothing but legalized robbery, and no "good" can justify it.

I assume you've called your local police and fire departments to let them know that as they're funded by 'legalized robbery,' you want no part of their services under any circumstances?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Common good? Don't waste my time.
Posted by: sausage on Jan 12, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Grow up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I do care about the common good, but...
Posted by: tjg1984 on Jan 13, 2009 3:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still don't think that's where my money goes, or will ever go, when the government takes it. I agree, though, that even if more of it did go to the "common good," taxation would still not be justified.

If something the government does has popular support, it will probably be done pretty well voluntarily. If it has no popular support, then it probably shouldn't be done. Either way, no coercion is needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Common Good
Posted by: BeckyD on Jan 12, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't object to giving up my money to fund the real 'common good.' Roads, schools, police, fire protection, a basic social safety net for those who can't care for themselves, a reasonable national defense, some common sense regulations to protect us from tainted food and bad water, etc.

The trouble is, anyone over the age of 40 has a history of seeing government waste our tax dollars again and again and again. New administrations come in full of promises of accountability and fiscal responsibility and we get $200 toilet seats and programs that use our hard earned money to benefit rich corporations.

Before I will support raising taxes on anyone, I want to see the Obama administration in action. Let them demonstrate concretely that they do intend to remove earmarks and wasteful spending, that they will put some accountability on the TARP funds. Obama is very good at talking the talk. Let's see what kind of steward he will be with our resources before we start raising taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is very reasonable. Posted by: tjg1984
No more taxes for us rich folk!
Posted by: dover23 on Jan 12, 2009 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's bad enough that the cost of purchasing the services of the average congressperson has skyrocketed, but you want to tax our income at 90% on top of that?

Do have any idea how much it cost us to put Obama in office? Sure we owned the mainstream media since the Clinton 90s but now we had to buy out practically all the so-called alternative media as well. You think we could have done that and also paid high taxes? Jeez, if we stayed out of it there would be Ron Paul in the white house and anarchy in the streets.

Please don't underappreciate who's created the illusion of change that's given you all that feel-good hope recently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Taxation without Representation!
Posted by: GrannyBgood on Jan 12, 2009 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember that?
Where is the "common good" in WAR and especially financing GENOCIDE, like we're doing in Gaza by having to send over 4 billion of OUR TAXES to the murdering Israelis?
That alone would make a good start on Nationalized Health care, that they're always whining they don't have the money for!
Whatever happened to "No taxation without Representation"? ?
Time for another REVOLUTION, not more Repug-lite!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Decentralize! Posted by: tjg1984
No thanks. Taxes are taxing, and neither the party of money and power, nor the party...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 12, 2009 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...of power and money inspire confidence that they have the wisdom to be trusted with more of our personal productivity.

The last eight years of mostly you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours between the executive and legislative branches were a disaster. Now, the demoboobs are fully invested in taking their shot at effing things up for the average person.

No thanks.

My wife and I have finally finished our education, we've finally saved enough to be looking to buy into a house with ~30% equity from day one, and we've done it without running up credit card debt, massive student loans, or tearing each other down. You fools who have perptrated this so-called "crisis"--which is another way of saying that your stupid credit card has hit its limit, finally--don't deserve a bail out. If you made foolish decisions with your future, you should eat beans for a while. I did as a kid--they're better for you than twinkies, anyway.

It sickens my heart to see several million greedy, ignorant fools and a handful of bastards and crooks at a few financial institutions shake this country to its foundation. TARP was an awful idea. Our government getting into the auto business is NOT a legitimate function of government.

No thanks to any more bailouts, and no thanks to mortgaging any more of our country's future to pay for our excesses today.

Slash the budgets, and then pay for what we want as we go. Prove to me you can send representatives to Congress who will spend wisely, and then ask me for more money, wisely spent.

As of right now, sending more money to be spent by a body with a 14% approval rating smacks more of desperation than any sort of "plan". At least if I'd sent my money to Congress' private sector analog--Madoff--I could ask for a tax break due to theft. I am not, however, that foolish with my money. I only wish the same of my fellows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That was refreshing. Posted by: tjg1984
Why the rich should pay more and be thankful for it!
Posted by: sausage on Jan 12, 2009 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really very simple: The rich should pay higher taxes as their way of saying thanks to all the "Joes the Plumber," the "Sarahs the Hockey Mom," the "Bills the Barber" and "Harriets the Hair Dresser," "Freddys the Factor Worker" and "Eunices the Union Member" for making them so rich to begin with.

Without a solid middle class underpinning the economy, the rich surely won't get any richer. They might even get a little poorer.

It's their duty, as good citizens, to pay their fair share for the continued fiscal health and well-being of the national economy which, in the long run, tends to make them even richer still.

And if any members of the upper one percent club do not feel they owe the greater society anything, here's my suggestion on what they should do: Put yer shoes on and get the hell outta my country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FUCK YOU ! I ain't payin' any more taxes for those motherfuckers in Washington to
Posted by: Wayne Etheridge on Jan 12, 2009 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
keep doling out bailouts to Wall Street and keep those god damn motherfucking wars runnin' ! Either Washington uses its tax money wisely or they don't deserve to be paid ! And FUCK the liberals such as Pelosi and Reid who keep dancing to the kkkonservatives !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» pelosi and reid aren't liberals... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Thanks for correcting me. Posted by: Wayne Etheridge
A few thoughts
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Jan 12, 2009 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, unlike many posters here, believe that taxes really do a lot of good in spite of excess spending on the military and other types of waste. Given a choice between the government and big business, I trust the government a whole lot more. If nothing else, the government at the very least has some responsibility to those who have elected its members. With business, the ordinary person has no say whatsoever in the election of those who rule.

As just a very small example, my state taxes are used in part to keep our rural roads graded and graveled. If all the neighbors on my back road got together and paid to just put gravel on as often as is needed, it would cost us much more than all our taxes combined. So maybe the state government does use some of its revenue to fund (for example) educational administrators' conventions. If the money went to private industries instead, it would very likely pay for huge CEO salaries and other perks and the services provided would cost considerably more. (And, yes, it might generate some jobs, but so does government money - someone has to grade the road no matter who they work for.)

If the US had a government paid universal health care system, we might all have to pay more taxes, but I am absolutely convinced that it would not mean an increase in taxes of $12,000 per year (the amount it costs just for insurance premiums in some states) plus deductibles, copays, and other medical expenses. Part of what costs Americans so much is paying the salaries and bookkeeping costs to those who work in the insurance and health care industries.

The government does not make a profit, business does. It's just like the private mercenaries who make multiples of what our troops make. It isn't that our taxes are not used to pay those mercenaries; it's that the companies contract with the government which pays them out of the same taxes that would be used to pay soldiers. In other words, our taxes help pay for private industry profits at the expense of the military. Prisons are the same way, as would be schools if the regressives had their way and they became privatized.

I have read that approximately 85% of US companies don't pay income tax because they base their operations in places like off-shore islands outside of US jurisdiction (as well as using other loopholes). Does anyone have more information on this subject? It seems to be a pretty high estimate, but I've heard it more than once.

I find it to be rather amazing that the neocons and other regressive rightwingers keep insisting that cutting taxes boosts the economy and hardly anyone challenges them when they say this. Recently on CNN, a Republican congresswoman was interviewed about the financial situation (can't remember who she was), and she announced that tax cuts increase ecomonic growth. The interviewer was John Roberts, and I've seen him challenge someone many times when he or she said something questionable. But he never even questioned this absurd statement.

Of course it's possible to overtax people, and it's also important that our taxes really are used for the common good. And although it's nearly impossible to entirely eliminate waste, corruption, and pork spending, I'd rather see some government waste than have my money go to increase the wealth and power of CEOs and multinational corporate interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A few thoughts Posted by: Lilly
Spending is a much stronger stimulus than tax cuts are
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 12, 2009 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spending is a much stronger stimulus than tax cuts are.

Fiscal Bang for the Buck
One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending.

Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26

Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30

Spending Increases
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

Source: Moody's Economy.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I should also say... Posted by: fanny666
people fail to see the other side of taxes...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 12, 2009 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all most people see is that something called "taxes" is being taken out of THEIR money...they perceive that that money is going to SOMEONE ELSE...what they don't seem to get is that some of that money actually comes back to them in the form of services most of us take for granted...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the monetary system
Posted by: lewb on Jan 12, 2009 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until we get rid of the monetary system,they have all the power. The choice is ours. Keep the monetary system and continue along like sheep,or replace it with a resource based economy without money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Make a proposal Posted by: billwald
» RE: Make a proposal Posted by: dover23
It's the monetary system
Posted by: lewb on Jan 12, 2009 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until we get rid of the monetary system,they have all the power. The choice is ours. Keep the monetary system and continue along like sheep,or replace it with a resource based economy without money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how many people actually paid the 88% marginal tax rate?
Posted by: billwald on Jan 12, 2009 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>During World War II, then under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, our upper marginal tax rates were between 88-92%.

How many actually paid this rate? I suspect none. Real rich people don't have taxable income except pocket change. They have a max 15% capital gains tax on what they spend. How much does a person with a $billion in assets spend? How much more than a person with $100 million? Ten bucks? Bottom line is that the $900 million is NEVER taxed except for death taxes and it is $9 Billion by then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unconstitutional
Posted by: constitution, what constitution on Jan 12, 2009 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Preface: This comment will receive a rating of 1.

1. Income taxes are unconstutional. Then again the majority of our laws are today, so that doesn't really matter.

2. Define rich. All these comments throw around "tax the rich/wealthy" without giving an actual number which would define a person/family as wealthy. Personally I believe this number should vary across the country due to cost of living. Just because I make more than "Joe the Plumber" (also a favorite phrase of these comments) does not mean my standard of living is that much greater than his.

3. Demanding a responsible government is more important than raising taxes. Hell, cut the War on Drugs, War on Terror, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. and we could fund single payer health care, renewable energy research, etc. (which create jobs and bolster our economy; without raising taxes!)

4. Public works arguments: I have no problem paying a toll for a road. At least then I'll know my money is going to upkeep the road I use as opposed to Federal Abstinence Only Education Programs.

5. Cut/Reposition Federal jobs. Run the Government like a private corporation. Cut useless departments and reposition their employees. Cut or retrain employees with poor performance. No sense wasting tax dollars on multiple departments which provide the same services.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FDR Anyone?
Posted by: BCcovers on Jan 12, 2009 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of you who do not know your history that well, here's a small lesson in recessions, depressions, and tax cuts.

One of the biggest mistakes made by Herbert Hoover was cutting government spending and freezing tax rates or raising them in some sectors. This is widely regarded as having exacerbated the great depression. At the time there was an outspoken economist named John Maynard Keynes who balked at such a premise and stated (in short) that in order to encourage growth, the government must spend more (this means more government jobs, public works, etc.) and also cut taxes at the same time in order to create growth in the private sector and cheaper prices for consumers. The idea of running a deficit in rough economic times seemed (and still seems to some) counter-intuitive. However, the flip side of the coin is that the government should do just the opposite (raise taxes and decrease spending) during times of extremely fast growth in order to curb inflation. Unfortunately, when times are good no one wants higher taxes and people (and our government is made of people) tend to spend $ like drunken sailors.

FDR took a chance and listened to Keynsian economic doctrine as he crafted the New Deal. This, along with the arrivial of WWII took us out of the Depression. Now, every recession and time in history is different, however it seems to me to be common sense not to raise taxes in a recession when we know what the results were when we tried this before. At the very least we should look back at history and see what has worked and what hasn't worked. We know, without a doubt, that raising taxes does not produce growth and is a toxic activity to engage in during a recession. Hoover proved that raising taxes (the Revenue act of 1932)during economic times is very very bad. History might not tell us exactly what we should do in this situation, but it does give us a strong warning of what not to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then when do you raise taxes? Posted by: ReallyBearish
Re "It's Our Nature"
Posted by: Lilly on Jan 12, 2009 3:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author says "it's our nature" to resist paying taxes. I don't think so. I think the American people re responding to a deliberate Republican campaign over the past forty years to teach that taxation is theft and that they should not have to pay taxes. If not paying taxes were human nature, Europeans, who pay much higher taxes than we do, would resist equally. Instead, they accept that the common good must be supported by taxation. It occurs to me that anyone younger than about 40-45 has grown up in an atmosphere of Reaganesque brainwashing and so accepts that resistance to taxation is somehow patriotic. Americans did not always feel this way. And nations more civilized than ours provide a much higher standard of living---supported by taxation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politicians are only interested in tax on the poor!
Posted by: centure7 on Jan 12, 2009 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Social Security is a 16% tax. However, if you make over about $200,000 you pay a 0% tax and are not part of social security at all! Social Security tax is an OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH TAX ON THE POOR!

Corporate tax is a 10% tax ON THE POOR. Notice how basic needs corporations are taxed at the same rate as corporations that make luxury goods. And who pays in the end every last penny of the taxes? Well lets see... corporations get their money in the end from who... oh yeah everyday people like you and me when we go to the store to buy stuff. So corporations that sell NEEDS like food, water, and clothing, pay taxes at the same rate as WANTS like jewelery stores. And on top of that you actually have to pay sales tax in most states on ALL of food, shelter, and clothing!

So lets see we have a 10% basic needs corporate tax + a 16% social security tax... that is already 26% on the poorest of the poor, with no way to avoid it!

Now states are talking about a miles tax applied to each mile driven in place of a gasoline tax. First, what the state does is force you to put a tracking device so they can track your every move by GPS. Next, they tax you for every mile driven. This way, the fat-cats in state government don't have to worry about that sharp and painful gas tax when they drive around their Hummer. Instead they can take great joy in the fact people who paid $3,000 for their used 30MPG Toyota have to pay another $3,000 in milage tax at the same rate as the $85,000 Hummer driver.

Talk about regression! And lets not forget that Obama may not even repeal the GW Bush tax breaks for the ultra-rich! What a total loser if he does at least do that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government as Big Business
Posted by: pdxjoe on Jan 12, 2009 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All these commentaries on taxes and how we should appreciate social services rarely, if ever, touch on the way most Americans have related to their government since FDR: as just another business. Relating to the government as just another business, or even a very special kind of business, whose job it is to sell us our tax-funded services is a recipe for resentment, political alienation and shoot-yourself-in-the-foot policies. Just think of how perfectly the Bush Administration has exploited this government-as-business mentality: business leaders who have infiltrated their competitor and driven it into the ground! Of course, ran as a business, it's caught in a dilemma: serve the interests of The People or of Profit. This is where we find Big Government inefficiencies, not any inherent limit to The People's ability to manage Their society. Obama does not seem one iota concerned with this fundamentally self-sabotaging, fundamentally fascist or bourgeois socialist ideology, and, in fact, fully endorses it and shows himself ready to exploit it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is Alternet so obsessed with GARGANTUAN governments?
Posted by: centure7 on Jan 12, 2009 5:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taxes can be done at the city and state level. And in fact they SHOULD be done at that level. The United STATES is supposed to be fifty individual states, not a monolithic empire dictated by one broad tax that Alternet loves so much. I think Alternet authors really need to loook into the idea of STATE taxes. I don't know what Alternet has against putting power in the hands of local groups and communities, but I'd like to know.

I know its true they didn't specifically say "national taxes" but you could tell by what the article focused on (Obama for example) that they meant a giant encompassing national tax.

Maybe the states who got hosed with the bad debts can go screw themself with higher taxes while those states such as the one I live in who acted responsibly won't have to get screwed over with the burden of higher taxes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually... Posted by: tjg1984
» You can't be serious. Posted by: tjg1984
» Great idea! Posted by: tjg1984
Taxes are a form of federal slavery
Posted by: Mailtrain on Jan 12, 2009 7:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are not paying taxes for the common good. It is for the common bad. Nothing but bombs and war. We should all stop paying any taxes at all until the wars and waste stop, not before.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wrinklemomma
Posted by: wrinklemomma on Jan 12, 2009 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as we allow the right to frame the arguement, and we allow corporations to enjoy the protections of persons under the law, we have no hope of setting taxes on ALL income at realistic rates or of closing ALL the loopholes that will provide enough money to pay for the true "common good".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm willing to pay 50% of my income in taxes
Posted by: willymack on Jan 12, 2009 8:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In exchange for the following:
1. Single payer universal health care (drug & insurance companies had better stay away).
2. Universal education through college for those academically qualified.
3. A plebisite system whereby we, the people vote on whether we make war on another country. Let's face it; congress can't be trusted with this.
4. A Constitutional Convention. If the ONLY thing coming out of this is the elimination of the hopelessly corrupt Electoral College, it'll be well worth it.
5. A whole new economy. The current one SUCKS. Maybe if there was no money.
6. A vote of "NO Confidence" by the people for the purpose of getting rid of trash like cheney/bush. Again, the congress can't be trusted with this.
I don't want to hear any crap about why we can't do any of this. We're the CAN DO country, remember?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nobody? I knew I landed on the wrong planet.....
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 12, 2009 10:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Awesome piece!

But I got confused by this: Why are we so resistant to raising taxes?
It's our nature. Nobody likes to give up their personal money for the common good.


I had a Quaker great grandfather who used to look forward to paying his income taxes. [Cue the alien insults and irascible laughter and catcalls] I looked forward to it as well... until I went beyond my altruistic urges and realized that a Government of, by, and for the owning-class in the US of A has no interest in the common good like I do. They abuse the tax system for their own personal good and then indoctrinate their sycophantic middlings and working class serfs with a mythology of lies and self-serving red herrings in order to perpetuate their plunder of others less fortunate (or criminal) than themselves.

Ideally, I LOVE paying taxes on my income. It's not a hell of a lot different than the private money I donate every year to non-profits who are altruistic in nature... even when I honestly cannot really afford to do so.

It would just hurt a lot less if the common good was actually served by those taxes instead of my private money going into the pockets of owning-classers who cheat us all (never mind the military soldier cult).

Earlier in this awesome piece, I latched onto this gem:
Rich people can't be trusted with too much money. If they have too much easy cash around, they get conned into Ponzi schemes, they go for quick money deals, they get suckered into bubbles, and then the whole economy crashes.

I totally agree. Just spend time with the owning class and any reasonable human being would be shocked at what passes for "common sense" among that group... and after 8 years of looting the commons and most everyone else's privates... they're the ONLY ones in power now. They hold all our cards and they think it's perfectly fine to flush them for us.

1789, baby....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 1776, baby. Posted by: tjg1984
BEING RIGHT, CORRECT, ACCURATE, IS THE POOREST PAYING JOB IN TOWN. WITNESS
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 14, 2009 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the responses to this excellent article. Again, again, and again Harry Truman shows up right. Harry took as much as 90%. Hollywood jokes that Sinatra paid in the 90% bracket and didn't die broke. Nothing is funny until it is true.

Eisenhower screwed it up. 1958 was a depression year. Harry's standard answer to any question was likely to be "more democracy".

This is our problem. We have too little democracy. Individually selfish men will not work together for a common cause. The nation and the body politic suffers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

90% Marginal Rates
Posted by: gellero1 on Jan 15, 2009 10:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
were never paid by any American, really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 90% Marginal Rates Posted by: Defenestrator
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement