Letters to the Editor
-
If the Democrats stand for anything ...
Unfortunately, it's becoming more and more clear that the *only* thing that they stand for is getting elected. When power in and of itself is the only goal of the political class, democracy becomes a meaningless charade.
-
A tax on wealth would be a good idea
However the Constitution requires that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, ..." So a progressive Federal tax on wealth is out. State taxes look difficult, since much of the wealth of the very rich isn't attached to assets in any particular place.
-
Why are Dems afraid to raise taxes on the rich?
Because they are afraid of EVERYTHING.
-
I am soooo...
I am soooo with you, buddy.
If ONLY we could find a leader that would help us get it done.
-
It was a cheap date too
Like the war in Iraq, sure baby.
Want to keep raising my debt limit?
Okay handsome.
You know I'm not the marrying type.
Well they all say that, sooner or later....
Honestly, sweetcheeks, I don't know what you see in me.
Well, you're so manly. You know what you want.
Oh baby, I want you.
And I want you, you big rich, oligarchy kind of guy
...
-
Social Security
I know that Sec. Reich is using shorthand to describe a situation he understands completely, but it is disturbing and extremely damaging to our discourse to see quotes like this:
the upcoming costs of boomers' Social Security (the current surplus has masked the true extent of the current budget deficit, but it won't for much longer)
True, the social security administration does not have cash on hand to cover the gaps between current payments into the system and the outgoing requirements for boomers' benefits. This is because social security is a creditor of the federal government.
The current national debt is a disturbing example of fiscal irresponsibility, but we are no less likely to pay back social security for the bonds and credits it holds than to pay back china, or for that matter the hedge funds managed by the super-rich.
A large part of the reason Democrats and other progressives can't find the political capital to raise taxes is that people do not believe government can do anything useful. Talking about social security in this slipshod manner just provides cover for a Reaganesque view of government.
Professor Reich, I am a huge fan of your work, and was a volunteer for your gubernatorial campaign, but I implore you to choose your words carefully in a soundbite driven environment where so much is at stake.
-
The money...
We're not going to get this fixed until we figure how to Federally fund elections. We have to take these obscene amounts of money out of the system. Television and radio advertising spots should be free. Campaigns should be limited to 3 months before the primary and 3 months after.
Of course our Senators and Congressmen aren't beholden to the people with the bucks-- like Fox is "Fair and Balanced."
-
at last! an ex-Clinton official who isn't a %#@in' @!#$@...
"You say the rich will leave the country rather than face a marginal tax of 50 percent? Let them, and take away their citizenship."
Yeah! (As I recall we had a 50 percent top marginal tax rate throughout most of the 60s and 70s, and apart from the Vietnam debacle we paid our way and still had a manufacturing base. What do we have now?)
Reich stands taller than any other ex-Clinton official in my book. Thank you Rober Reich, and thank you Salon for publishing this.
-
The top 1% pays 21 % of our Federal income taxes.
The next 9% pays 45-50 %. That leaves 90% of the American population paying only 30% but doing 99% of the bitching and moaning.
-
Oops, and one other thing
How can we take money out of elections if the bottom 10% can vote for public entitlements that they will recieve but they don't pay anything into the system? I don't think this is what the progressive hippies meant although that is the practicle result. If we took the money out of the election system then we could only vote on things that do not cost money.
Europe is beset by the left / labor where a large part of the population (10-20%) lives quite well but contributes almost nothing. They vote but don't work. Eat the rich and when they are gone then the devil take the hind most.
-
Maybe Democrats are just lazy
I'm not so sure that the reason Democrats won't raise taxes on the rich is because they have grown accustomed to the money; there will always be another group to help fill the coffers. I think the real reason Democrats seem frozen in a state of inactivity is that they are lazy. If they challenge the wealthy they'll have to spend years listening to millionaires piss and moan. It's just easier to do nothing.
-
comments to jon, Uncle_DirtNap and Ghingis Can
jon, yes your quote was correct, but it was from Section 2. Amendment 16 modified it to allow such (from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ) Uncle_DirtNap, well yes, the U.S. is going to have to print money as if global warming was going out of style(buy gold). and finally, Ghingis Can, what would you rather do? pay 38% on two million or 15% of 37,000 (median). i know what you'd like. the TRUE flat tax plan. everybody pays the same. the GDP is about 2.5 trillion. if you divide that by the number of returns (100 million?) you get 25,000, the average tax bill. what if you are earning less? i suppose you could sell a kidney. really ghingis, you do fine. to "bitch and moan" about hippies and deadbeats makes it seem like money DOESN'T buy happiness.
-
Remember the Laffer Curve
It sure sounds good, raise taxes on the filthy rich. Guess what? It doesn't work. The higher the tax rate, the more people have an incentive to avoid taxes. And, in fact, the top 1% of earners are paying a bigger share of the tax burden now than they did during the Clinton era.
Think about it: If you're paying upwards of 100,000$ in tax, you have quite an incentive to hire an expert to figure out how to cut that burden.
The current tax system is such a mess of exemptions, exceptions, definition, and regulations that even the IRS can only make a rough guess at how any change will change revenue.
The real challenge is not figuring out how to land someone else with the burden of paying for all US Gov't "services" but to cut spending. Chop pork. End subsidies to enormous factory farms, stop building bridges to nowhere. And, of course, stop funding the war in Iraq.