Dozens of America’s wealthiest taxpayers — including hedge fund legend Michael Steinhardt, super trial lawyer Guy Saperstein, and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s fame — have appealed to President Obama not to renew the Bush tax cuts for anyone earning more than $1 million a year. Calling themselves “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,” the 40-plus signers today launched a website and a campaign that they hope will draw support from others who agree that fiscal responsibility should begin with those who can best afford it — as their letter to Obama explains.
[...]
The Patriotic Millionaires campaign, pulled together quickly by the Agenda Project in New York City, just happens to appear on the same day as a new study from the Center for Responsive Politics revealing that half of the members of the House and the Senate are millionaires. That contrasts sharply with the general population, of whom fewer than 1 percent can claim millionaire status.
Some might see a correlation and potential conflict of interest in that last point. Obviously, irresponsible conspiracy theorists.
Not surprisingly, some of the super-rich declined to join the Patriotic Millionaires when the Agenda Project reached out to them. [...]A Manhattan hedge fund billionaire said he believes the cuts should be extended and added that “the moneys should be used to pay down debt” — which sounds like the magical Republican plan to simultaneously cut taxes, wage war and drastically reduce the deficit. The same investor also complained that “anyone who has money is made to feel that they’re bad.”
Bad? Only if they’d rather force Grandma to eat cat food than pay their fair share.
jman…is Buffett in that special 0% bracket?
The state of California is the standard for Democratic tax and social policies. Nothing but a Ponzi scheme sucking up taxes and returning entitlements as a way of buying votes until it collapses under it’s own weight.
But of course it’s all for some nebulous future for the children, sick, and poor that all democrats fight for.
#78
Tax rates are at historic lows. Sure seems to me (and many others) as if we have a revenue problem, too
That’s not a valid argument for the budget problems. In your world, there is no accountability for spending. Arguing that “we’re spending more than we make and tax rates are low” does not determine whether the reason debt levels are rising is because we are simply spending too much. We would have to wait until the we are deep in debt *AND* over taxed before any action would be taken and by then it is too late.
The government needs to first cut spending to match revenue. Only then can we evaluate what other programs we want to the government to manage for which it will need additional revenue and *then* we can decide to increase taxes to pay for those programs. In short, the government needs tell us why exactly, for what programs exactly it needs the additional revenue and that plan has to include a balanced budget. I.e., with the additional revenue, the government could eliminate the deficit and start paying down its debt and fund whatever program(s) for which it is requesting the additional revenue. In short, until we see a balanced budget with their *current* revenue, there is no argument that can justify tax increases because there is no way to know if the tax increase will actually solve the problem or just fuel the fire.
#80
#77–Thomas==its clear you are just talking out your ass. Balanced budgets is NOT your primary goal–paying less taxes is.
Look who’s talking out of their tokhes now? My primary goal is justified tax increases. Why should anyone want to give more money to the government if it will simply continue to spend more than it makes? The more money we give the government the higher the debt it racks up. It is giving crack to the crack addict. Only a liberal would think that is ok for the Federal government not to have a balanced budget. Hell, we’d even be ok with seeing how the tax increases they do propose will actually get them to a ZERO deficit THIS year. As far as I know, every State is required to have a balanced budget. Why not the Federal government?
you “reduce taxes” without reducing spending==YOU ARE STILL TAXING THE PUBLIC.
Completely agree. One more time: I agree. HOWEVER, what you propose is to raise revenue to meet expenses. That’s fiscally stupid. That’s a black hole of ever increasing taxes. The fiscally responsible solution is to lower expenses to meet current revenue. Only then can we evaluate the programs that are desired and the amount of money necessary to fund them. The way it works now is that the government spends the money and after the fact says we have to increase taxes.
Only when the government balances its current budget can any tax increase be justified. Otherwise, we have no means of knowing whether we are helping to solve the problem or just funding a Ponzi scheme.
Thomas,
Your argument is bogus as it is circular.
“Only a liberal would think that is ok for the Federal government not to have a balanced budget”
1.) Conservatives have increased our national debt every-time they hold the White House since Reagan.
In 1980 the national debt stood at under $2 trillion. Reagan doubled the figure in 8 years with his tax cutting and the dubious promise of trickle down – aka vodoo – economics. George H Bush, father of the term vodoo economics, took it past $6 trillion. Clinton lowered it, and George W reversed the trend, and doubled it yet again to $13 trillion. What part of this do dumb conservatives not get?
Thomas,
In addition to our argument is bogus as it is circular.
Didn’t VP Cheney tell us that “Reagan has proven that deficits don’t matter”?
What changed, our dear conservatives? Deficits now matter just because you are out of office?
Thomas…this isn’t a binary problem where spending cuts and revenue increases are mutually exclusive. There are 10 options, why not pick them both?
Conservatives see only black & white.
Saying there are shades of grey or color is just high fluentant mumbo jumbo.
I have to suggest something here.
Being rich, isnt the problem here.
There are many ways to become rich.
One of them seems to be about PUSHING UP costs to the public. Over pricing goods.
Under the capitalist ideals..its NOT money, its BUYING POWER. If you look at any model, its BUYING POWER. which means someone/everyone has to have money to BUY STUFF. If the money dont move around, it DONT WORK. Under a capitalist ideal PRICES FALL, only to the point that you can get 1/2 the people to BUY your products. Its NOT HAPPENING.
There is a string to this tho…REQUIREMENTS TO LIVING. This few things SHOULD BE REGULATED. Food, housing, BASIC utilities..
something WEIRD that they wont tell you, in this…YOUR WAGES should fluctuate WITH the price of goods. But, as those on TOP have gained EXTRA MONEY, those on the bottom, gained NOTHING for 20 years. Compare wages in the past to recent times.
AS to the government. LOOK at THEIR pay history…before and AFTER the 70′s. There was a STRANGE VOTE..we need to change that.
HOW about this: What is LEFT of the tax money incurred over the year and NOT SPENT to keep this country rolling, after FULL PAYMENTS for all needed services, can be spared to pay our representative government employees. i would also point out that 99% of the government ISNT ELECTED. MOST never had any education/experience in the JOBS they have/got.
Good luck on the debate.
Yes, capital gains revenues went up when you lower the rates. This of course fails if you lower the rate to zero, but the argument is the benefits to the economy are substantial and outweigh the loss of capital gains revenue. The gains in revenue happen even without growth, just because people can choose when to sell their shares, and a lower rate, they will cash in. I have seen some people write there is no correlation between economic growth and the change in capital gains tax rates, though it is too small a sample size to say for sure.
It is possible Obama wasn’t paying attention beyond keying in on the topic is capital gains taxes, much like Hillary nodding along as Mrs Arafat says Israelis kill Palestinian babies and drink their blood. He stuck to his talking points.
Of course it is unfair to have some people do no work and make money. It is silly to think you can undo unfairness. Why is it fair to tax something again, after it has already been earned? Someone puts it in a bank account and saves it, and has to pay money on the interest, even though in some cases the money is worth less than when he started.
#86,#87
1.) Conservatives have increased our national debt every-time they hold the White House since Reagan.
No sir. Republicans increased our national debt during Reagan’s administration as did Democrats and yes there were many conservatives that called for balanced budgets. The arguments in favor of deficit spending at the time was that we were at war with the Soviets.
. Clinton lowered it, and George W reversed the trend, and doubled it yet again to $13 trillion. What part of this do dumb conservatives not get?
Not true. No President in the past 100 years has lowered the debt. Every fiscal year under Clinton, the debt went up. What happened during Clinton’s administration is that Social Security received quite a bit more than it spent and so some of the public debt was paid down using intergovernmental debt (aka T-bills). However, that just moved the money around. It is still the case that the government spent more than it made every year of Clinton’s administration. The closest it got was “only” 17 billion in the red.
#88
A reasonable question. It comes down to whether the government is going to be fiscally responsible. The government needs to show how it is going to balance its budget *this* year. If it needs tax increases to do that, then put that in the plan and sell it to the American people. Even with tax increases, the Federal budget will not be balanced. What will happen is that the money will be spent on “something” and we’ll be in the same hole except with higher taxes with the same cries about not having enough money. This comes down to trust. No one trusts that the additional money they ask of everyone will be spent to get their house in order because no one was alive when it happened last.
#91,
Mike,
do you understand ALL the taxes you pay?
ALL the hidden tax, on goods that are passed onto the customer on Every product and food and utilities..Everything. Including your 30% on wages add another 30% to it.
# 92 Thomas,
Your from Canada, what do you know!
Hi Thomas,
You have no idea what you are talking about.
#92“Not true. No President in the past 100 years has lowered the debt.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
Here is a graphic showing how national debt was reduced under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. Don’t forget Eisenhower and Nixon. No President can reduce debt, huh?
Not a modern Republican president anyway. You just don’t have the moral high ground.
#92 “It is still the case that the government spent more than it made every year of Clinton’s administration. The closest it got was “only” 17 billion in the red.”
Wrong again. Go to wolframalpha.com and type in “u.s. budget deficit”
Note where the line goes below zero, and forgive Bill Clinton for your oversight. A budget surplus tends to look like a deficit when you are innumerate. I understand completely.
#85 “Only when the government balances its current budget can any tax increase be justified.”
Let me remind you that George W. started with a surplus. He started two wars and lowered taxes. If we stop both wars and return taxes to the previous levels wouldn’t that be progress toward a balanced budget?
#71“The majority of citizens are not to blame for the government spending money it did not have. We did not saddle our children with government debt. The blame falls squarely on the politicians that did not listen to their constituents who have screamed for years to balance their budget. We vote them out of office and the next group is just as bad.”
That just isn’t true. We can blame people who voted Republican any time since Reagan. Everything they touched turned to shit. It isn’t an accident.
You can’t even believe how wrong you are. I hope it trickles down to you eventually.
“Fiscal Conservatives” are FINANCIAL CHILD MOLESTERS !!!
STEALING FROM KIDS AND THE UN-BORN TO GIVE
***TAX CUTS TO BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES*** !!!
It is time to BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES, AND NOT KIDS !!!
***SOAK THE RICH*** !!!
#95
You have not demonstrated that the overall total debt amount was reduced. You simply showed that the economy grew faster than the debt and thus the debt as a percentage of GDP when up and down. However, in finding the raw numbers off the Treasury site (not easy to find. http://goo.gl/bpLCn), I did find the last time the debt when down (1957).
These are the debt numbers as of the given date for the Presidents you listed:
Eisenhower ( June 1953 to June 1960 ): 266 B, 271 B, 274 B, 272 B, 270 B, 276 B, 284 B, 286 B
Kennedy ( June 1961 to June 1963 ): 288 B, 298 B, 305 B
Johnson ( June 1964 to June 1968 ): 311 B, 317 B, 319 B, 326 B, 347 B
Nixon ( June 1969 to June 1973 ): 353 B, 370 B, 398 B, 427 B, 458 B
Carter ( Sep 1977 to Sep 1980 ): 698 B, 771 B, 826 B, 907 B
Clinton ( Sep 1993 to Sep 2000 ): 4.4 T, 4.6 T, 4.9 T, 5.2 T, 5.4 T, 5.5 T, 5.65 T, 5.67 T
Note that the government’s fiscal year changed from June 30 to Sept 30 in 1977.
So, I admit I was incorrect that the debt has not gone down in the past 100 years. It last happened 53 years ago.
Frankly, you have been duped into thinking that the party you support is any better than oppose. The last somewhat fiscal President was Eisenhower.
#95
It isn’t much use to talk about debt unrelated to something else, either the size of the debtor(individual debt) or the economy (collective debt).
I will illustrate why. Person A makes 50k/year but has 150k of debt. Person B makes 1M/year and has debt of 300k. Which debt is more significant?
Understanding an individual or group’s debt still isn’t complete. The type of debt and history of the borrower are also important.
Sadly, our greatest asset is how shaky the rest of the world is.
Also, the site you mentioned also didn’t say if those were inflation-adjusted dollars. It makes a difference.
#98
It isn’t much use to talk about debt unrelated to something else, either the size of the debtor(individual debt) or the economy (collective debt).
Nonsense. The national debt is the amount of money owed by the government which the taxpayers have to pay back. The numbers off that site are the raw numbers of money owned. By hook or crook, we (and our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren….) have to pay that money back. That our government has devalued the currency over the years to make the debt not look as bad as it is (although 96.7% of GDP is bad no matter the spin) a separate discussion.
Taxing the wealthy or not won’t the solve the problem.
We have a large trade imbalance. An outflow of blood without much of an inflow. With sustained economic losses masked by the deficit spending and the corresponding job loss, there just isn’t going to be enough to tax. You can’t tax jobs or production you’ve lost and skyrocketing debt interest will take us into a grave place.
Tax policy cannot solve a trade policy problem.
And big multinational corporations are the backbone of campaign financing and have bought both parties; their interest is not our interest but carve us up like a Thanksgiving turkey.
Eventually the problem will be solved, but I don’t see how it can happen. Our political system has been subverted by multinational profiteer corporations.
I thought Dick Cheney declared that “deficits don’t matter”.