People should remember that the ‘rich’ have sacrificed a large part of their lives and free time to succeed. If someone makes that much out of hard work (acting excluded), it’s theirs and their right to spend how they will.
I could almost read this article without getting totally pissed. However, this is stupid. Does the author not realize that keeping tax cuts in place is better for demand than raising them?
Well we have had the Bush tax cuts while all the jobs were created in other countries. Just check what you buy and see where the jobs went. Demand is down, because income is down, because jobs are down, because jobs are exported. And tax cuts won't bring them back because tax rates did not send jobs overseas.
Even if you considered all federal taxes, the top 1% paid 28.1% of them in 2007, up from 15.4% in 1979.
But wait! (you say) The top 1% have a larger share of the total pre-tax income. Yes, they do. It was 19.4% in 2007.
So, in 2007, the top 1% collected 19.4% of total income, but paid 39.5% of total individual federal income taxes. So, they are paying twice their share of individual income tax for their every share of income.
Still think they aren't paying their fair share?
Hey Froma!
Did you Fail Econ 101 or just never enroll?
Unless the “rich” are burying their money in the yard, or giving it to Obama, that money creates jobs!
They buy, they build, they hire, they consume, or they invest so that other’s have access to that capital to buy, build, hire, or consume.
Each of those activities CREATES JOBS!!!!
Just because this solid economic model, called “the multiplier effect”, has been lost on liberals, doesn’t mean its’ not real!
I never got a job from a poor man. Poor men don’t hire people to work on their homes.
Trying to balance the budget by increasing taxes on "the rich" without, at the same time, cutting government spending will have the following effects on the economy as a whole:
1)slow down or decrease amount of saving
2)slow down or decrease productive expenditure
3) decrease capital accumulation or slow down the rate of increase in capital accumulation
4) slow down economic progress
5) decrease costs of doing business
6) increase oppression/tyranny
7) by slowing down economic progress, it hurts those whom he is pretending to care about (the "non-rich").
Raising taxes on “the rich” deprives them of funds that could be used to pay wages, which decreases the demand for labor. A decrease in the demand for labor tends to slow down the rise in average wage rates or decrease them. A decrease in the demand for labor also tends to slow down a rise in the employment rate in the private sector or decrease it. Both of these are bad for the “non-rich”. Thus, again, progressives end up hurting those whom they say they are trying to help. It appears that progressives are really filled with envy induced resentment against achievement which motivates them to want to attack and punish the rich rather than help the non-rich.
But, even if raising taxes on “the rich” could increase the government payroll, and increase the demand for labor by the government, and during a time of unemployment, raise the employment rate in the public sector, the negative side effects of the increased taxation would still be much worse:
1) slow down or decrease savings
2) slow down or decrease relative demand for capital goods
3) slow down or decrease in relative production in capital goods
4) slow down or decrease accumulation of capital
5) slow down or decrease productivity of labor
6) slow down or decrease incentive to improve products and methods of production
7) slow down or decrease in productivity of capital goods
8)reduction in the wage "share" of national income which reduces real wages