Skip to main content

It seems that every "debate" on the cable talk shows regarding the deficit has the Republican talking about how bad it would be to increase taxes on the "job creators" and the Democrat saying the Republican wants to eliminate Medicare to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.  I believe that this is not a very effective strategy for the Democrats and they should stop it.

For starters, despite the fact that "job creators" aren't creating jobs with their tax cuts, it doesn't sound good.  Many people believe that the definition of the American Dream means that one day they will be the "job creators" and they will want those tax cuts when that happens.  Secondly, and it is basically the same reason, they hope to be the millionaires and billionaires who's taxes the Democrats are proposing increasing.

This violates a fundamental sense of fairness among us, and there is a better way.

Let us stipulate that equal protection under the law is a fundamental American value.  If that is so, then taxing one person more than another is antithetical to that value.  As the Republicans put it, we are penalizing success.  Here's a radical idea:  Let us not tax people at all.

Rand Paul's ears perked up there.  I'm not as crazy as I sometimes claim to be (it makes a good defense).  The truth is that we do not tax people.  We tax the money they make.  It is the basis of the progressive income tax system we have.  Remember, we have to treat all people the same.

So, we tax the first "X" dollars everyone makes at 10%, the next "Y" amount at 15% and so on, up to a maximum amount of 35%.  Actual rates can bee found at this link: http://taxes.about.com/...
In the past, that maximum has been as high as 90%, but nobody was paying 90% of their salary in taxes.  We are not talking about that high level of taxation either.

Under President Clinton, the highest marginal rate was 39.6%.  Currently, it is 35%.  Since the talking point has been "millionaires and billionaires," let's stay there.  In our effort to effectively pay for the responsibilities of government (i.e, paying for our armed forces, maintaining our roads, preventing disasters and cleaning up the ones we can't, et al), we are going to tax that second million dollars and beyond at a slightly higher rate.  

Is it such a bad thing to ask someone to pay an $40,000 more for their second million than their first?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No "new" taxes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock

    indeed. Let's go back to the old tax structure we had under President Eisenhower--back in the days when we were still a respected superpower.

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 06:02:41 PM PDT

  •  Rates are WAY Too Low for a Stable Safe Economy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jacey

    at the top end.

    The US economy has had panics and crashes every few years our entire history, except for the years of >>50% top marginal rate of the New Deal thru Great Society. That's because when the rich can take most of even huge incomes home, they run the economy to get them, and that requires basically gambling with everything.

    As soon as we became a powerful economy, we were able to crash much of the world economy. We stopped that with the high top rates and all manner of economic regulation, but as soon as Reagan cut the resulting safe high rates back down well below 70% we went back on the roller coaster and for the second time in living memory we've crashed the global economy a couple years ago.

    Under Clinton, people say the rich got richer but so did everybody else. That's absolutely false. This is the Clinton economy:
    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Look even the top 1% barely gained, when the jackpots of the top 400 families are removed.

    That red line is where the money was banked that bought the government starting in the last Clinton years when did disastrous financial and media deregulation just before Bush.

    Incomes went up but so did spending. The people were maintaining lifestyle during Clinton by borrowing against fake home and retirement equity. That was a period of multiple bubbles, including housing that was already way past 100 year peaks during Clinton's term. When those bubbles corrected, the people had lost a huge amount of wealth which is where we are today.

    Clintonomics is Reaganomics and Reaganomics doesn't work regardless of which party runs it.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 06:20:36 PM PDT

  •  well put... (0+ / 0-)

    perspective is key to making people understand something that conflicts with what they take for granted, or accept as fact without knowing fact from fiction.
    i like the extra $40K example on the 2nd million...

  •  Repugs-18th century ans to 21st cent problems! (0+ / 0-)

    Prof Charles Clarke of St. Johns University said in a recent paper " the Ryan republican agenda of small govt, low tax rates and privatization is all grounded in the 18th century. But in fact the 21st century is fundamentally different from its 18th century ancestor"And, another interesting tidbit: the US cannot run out of money, because the govt pays its bills with money it creates.  the US can always pays its bills because it has a "sovereign currency". The value of our money, is the full faith our creditors have in our currency.

    This valuable insite into our financial situation can be found  on the website for  "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good".www.catholicsinalliance.org/images/CGF_6-8-11_clark.pdf.

    Archbishop Dolan wrote a letter to Ryan and referenced this information. As a leader of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops he is opposed to the Ryan PLan which clearly bases its proposals on ideology over evidence. We have 200 years of experience that  contradicts any compatibility of these 18th century solutions with  21st century fiscal and economic problems.

    E.McCarthy:"Republicans feed the sparrows by first feeding the horses".

    by CarmanK on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 10:15:03 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site