Robert Bell wrote on September 22, 2008 09:53 AM: This class warfare thing is going to backfire. Most middle-class people were willing to buy the argument that "other folks" would get tax increases.

But now the Obama campaign is attacking McCain for owing "7 houses and 13 cars, many of them foreign".

The standard of "wealthy" is becoming all-too-apprarent. If you aren't an angry unemployed stoner, you are an evil "rich person" who deserves to be taxed to death to pay for someone else's methadone treatments.

Unfortunately, Obama's egghead advisors don't realize that we live in a nation of 300 million people and 330 million cars. Most of us have two cars, many have three or more. The attack on McCain's cars will hit home in a way that arguments tax code minutae will not.

And the expensive rides in McCain's garage? A decade-old Lincoln town car, a Honda Accord (made in Marysville, Ohio, not sure that is "foreign") and an old jeep. Real high end stuff.

McCain married a wealthy woman. "That's every man's dream, isn't it?" That's the line McCain will use at the debates when Obama falls into the trap of accusing McCain of being wealthy (Obama himself is a millionaire). Once the laughter dies down from that quip, it will be all over for Obama.

I am tired of this stupid "class warfare" argument. The poor are largely poor because they make BAD ECONOMIC DECISIONS. I know this because I used to be poor. Feeling sorry for someone who continually squanders their wealth is not the answer to our society's problems.

Matt wrote on August 15, 2008 11:59 AM: This is the same old tired party line argument the Republicans always give. And since the RJ is nothing more than a right wing republican tabloid to spread the rich mans gospel. I'm not surprised that tripe like this is in your paper.

What taxes are you going to collect from someone who makes less than 44,000 per year? The reason the rich pay more, isn't only a function of the percentages, it's because they make more money, thus more tax dollars are paid.

Duh!

You guys at the RJ can try and slant the election in your favor because you have a monopoly on the papers in Vegas, but it won't work this time. People see thru your charades, and we are sick of your lies, and the GOP's lies. We are in the mess we are in because of people like you that support the GOP. Your time is over.

Paula Bennett wrote on April 03, 2008 07:12 PM: Well...Warren Buffett complained that his secretary paid higher taxes than he did last year. How does that scenario square with your laments? I'd really, really like to see you explain how that fits your opinions.

Jon Hamel wrote on September 22, 2007 04:02 PM: Why would we need to cut any programs in order to trim $450 billion from the budget? Most studies on the subject suggest that taxpayers shell out in excess of two dollars for every dollars worth of service . . . as measured from the free market private sector. So I would argue that rather than talk about a reduction of service, to cut $430 billion in spending, we should be talking about an increase of productivity in the public sector. If they can't do it, then we really don't need that unproductive part of the public sector, do we. We as Citizens will be able to find alternatives.

As to the question of what is highly productive, let me answer it in this way. Who would one consider potentially more productive: An employee that works for a monopoly (government service or government franchised monopoly) where the customer has no choice as to who to do business with, or an employee who works for a business that operates in the free market, where the customer has many alternatives.

I think the answer is clear . . . anyone disagree?

John wrote on September 21, 2007 04:56 AM: Ron,

So specifically which programs would you cut to balance the budget if you do not want to raise taxes? You have about $430 billion of cutting to do.

Finally what does "highly productive" mean? Is an owner of a strip club "highly productive"? Is a baseball player "highly productive"? Is a private equity manager "highly productive"? I would argue that a person who makes a great deal of money does not have to be "highly productive" using my definition.

GEORGE wrote on September 21, 2007 04:43 AM: In response to Mike's comment-- The poor pay property taxes even if they do not own property. It is factored into their rent payments. Only the homeless escape the property tax.

ron wrote on September 20, 2007 06:47 PM: John,
Let's reduce spending to balance the budget. Believing that productive people won't notice notice that they are being taxed at a higher rate is the same as someone taking $100 out of your wallet every day, or a pint of your blood every day.... it is simply not fair. Someone used the example of cops, firemen and teachers as representing the poor? Please... copy make so much money in this town and their benefits are so amazing that they often retire at age 55. Firemen are not much worse. The average teacher makes about 50K for 8 months work. The real war here is between the lazy, poor people who live off our taxes... why in the world shoud they get the same amount of votes (1) as does the highly productive person who contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes? To 'ex-middle class': you praise the Constitution, but it doesn't call for public education or healthcare.... however, socialist doctorines do. If you want these things, why don't you work for it.

John F wrote on September 20, 2007 12:52 PM: To the editors of the RJ:

You like to complain that the midlle and lower classes are trying to wage class warfare on the wealthy. Wake up, editors. The war started a long time ago and the wealthy have been doing quite well, thank you very much. Real income for all but that top 10% has stagnated or declined in the last eight years while the top 10% have realized tremendous gains. That the Democrats have joined the fray on the side of the middle and lower classes is not surprising. I only wonder that it's taken them so long.

How's this for a suggestion editors: let's put tax rates back to where they were before the current President took office. Yes, I understand that it would entail raising taxes on the wealthy. But they are, after all, the ones who have seen their taxes cut recently (elimination off the estate tax, dividend tax, etc.). In any event, economic times were quite good eight years ago, so the tax rates then were certainly not a brake on the economy, plus we were living within our budgetary means. By the way, this means a rise in my taxes as well. I don't believe in calling for others to sacrifice if I'm not willing to share in that sacrifice.

As for all the statistics you quote, of course the wealthy pay the lion's share of the taxes. They make the lion's share of the income and hold an incredible percentage of the nation's wealth.

John wrote on September 20, 2007 12:46 PM: Willy,

Well said.

Tax avoidance is best prevented with tax simplification. For individuals, the way to best accomplish this would be to treat all sources of income the same without any exemptions, eliminate itemized deductions and replace with a standard deduction indexed for inflation set at a level so that low income earners do not have to pay income tax, and have personal exemptions for the taxpayer, spouse and children indexed for inflation. Calculating taxable income for those of us who receive a W-2 should take no more than 10 minutes assuming we have other sources of income. Without other sources of income, two minutes. Tax rates would be progressive set at appropriate levels so that the highest payers would pay the most but at the same time not to be punitive. This will eliminate most if not all tax avoidance schemes for the vast majority of the population. It will also achieve the goal of simplification and reduction of paperwork.

willy wrote on September 20, 2007 12:21 PM: What people always seem to miss is this simple fact. If there was a say $500 tax cut on the "middle class" all these above middle class businessmen would benefit. Why? Because the middle class almost as sure as the sun rises would spend their tax break and increase the income of those business owners.

Another thing, I never buy into these arguments about someone paying attention to his tax rates in his pursuit of income. Most rich people work and make as much as they can, then pursue ways to reduce their tax cut. How many people are going to say, "No thanks, I don't want that raise or income because it will take me over $150,000. I want my tax break instead." It just isn't going to happen. The rich instead look at ways to increase their tax-efficient asset base in order to lower the tax bill. So any increase in progressive tax rates gets eaten up by maneuvers meant to foil those increases. To say a tax increase will cause a certain amount of harm is crazy.

This is to say basically forget about the themes and the nice talking points that only exist in a vacuum. Pay attention to the end effects. Any tax plan like Obama's is likely to increase spending, increase savings...but bring in lower tax revenues because it will encourage more efforts at tax avoidance.

Read All Comments