Posted on 09/18/2011 7:03:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
he Republicans have had 12 hours to digest the news that President Obama plans to propose a "Millionaire's tax" on annual incomes over $1 million.
As expected, they're freaking out.
And if they had a good argument as to why such a tax was a terrible idea, we'd be happy to say so. But so far anyway, they don't.
Obviously, no one likes higher taxes. And it's no surprise that the potential target of higher taxes will squawk in protest as soon as the idea is proposed. But if the country is to begin to find a way out of its massive debt-and-deficit problem, it's important to separate the self-interested squawking from actual logic.
The Republic arguments against Obama's millionaire's tax boil down to the following:
Raising taxes on millionaires will kill their ambition and discourage them from working
Raising taxes on millionaires will punish successful people for being successful
Raising taxes is always a terrible idea--the problem is spending
Taxes are a form of theft: The government has no right to take our money away
Raising taxes in a weak economy will further weaken the economy
Of these reasons, only the last one is valid. Raising taxes in a weak economy might, in fact, further weaken the economy (or the private sector, anyway). This weakening effect will certainly be less than it would if one raised taxes on the middle class, but it still could weaken the economy. And that's why it's important to consider the tax carefully and phase it in over time.
Just admit it: He's right on this one.
The rest of the Republican counter-arguments are just silly, self-serving, or obstructionist. Let's take them one by one, ending with the one that seems most persuasive to reasonable people.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.businessinsider.com ...
True even if it is bullsh*t. Most of Buffett’s income is likely capital gains, which is taxed seperately from “regular” income - and SHOULD BE.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549,
Plaintiff,
- against -
HENRY McKELVEY BLODGET,
Defendant.
Civil Action No.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (”Commission” or “SEC”) alleges:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. The Commission brings this action against defendant Henry McKelvey Blodget to redress his violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (”Exchange Act”), pertinent rules thereunder, and pertinent rules of NASD Inc. (”NASD”) and the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (”NYSE”).
2. During the period January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001 (the “relevant period”), Blodget was a Managing Director and the senior research analyst at Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (”Merrill Lynch”), covering the Internet sector.
3. During the relevant period, Blodget issued research reports on one Internet company, GoTo.com, that violated antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and issued research reports on six other Internet companies that expressed views inconsistent with privately expressed negative views as discussed below. These reports violated NASD and NYSE rules that require, among other things, that published research reports have a reasonable basis, present a fair picture of the investment risks and benefits, and not make exaggerated or unwarranted claims.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18115b.htm
To me, the answer should include two components: (1) The problem is with too much spending, and (2) raising taxes on the millionaire will not be enough as long as (1) stands. Otherwise, sooner or later, the middle class will see their taxes up too.
The supply side answer may be correct, however, in the PR war (where the MSM will simply parrot what 0bama says) it won't be easy to sell.
Same old rubbish from another aspiring Krugman.
How about the fact that even a lot of Democrats think this plan is full of crap? Maybe not the tax itself, but this so-called jobs plan as a whole?
RE: Why debate a thief who has been banned for life from the securities industry? If you hadn’t put his article here, there wouldn’t be more than 50 people in the world who even read it.
Even if the writer was personally banned from the securities industry these arguments will still exist in one form or another. Arguments exist to be REFUTED regardless of who the person making the argument is. Let’s focus on the argument, not the person.
There is only one argument to be made.
Cut the spending first. Cut it all the way to 0 deficit. And do it in 3 years. Then we’ll talk about tax increases to generate a surplus to pay down the debt.
Not until. And you want some DoD cuts with that? No problem. We’ll cut civilian employees of DoD in blue states. How’s that feel?
Lots of people do not understand supply-side economics, whether they are felons or not. You shouldn’t run around expecting to get a serious debate whenever some dipwad posts a few sentences on the internet.
Regardless the arguments, we have an overspending problem that no amount of tax increases will solve.
I think we should connect high taxes and overregulation to corruption of elected officials.
Without those things, business would have little interest in funneling money into lobbying.
>>> Eliminate the corporate taxes and roll back regulation and business will have little reason to buy congressmen.>>>
Which really speaks to what I’ve always said about MCCain’s idiotic CFR bill: the only way to keep money out of politics is to keep politics (government) out of money. In other words, shrink government size, scope and reach and this problem will go away - which is what you said in other words.
now, back to our regularly scheduled thread....
Why would I want Obama to have more money? So that he can create more public mandates? Funnel even more to his political cronies? Find new venues for federal agents to feel up the public? Given all the crap that they’ve been doing in Washington lately the last thing I want them to have is even more money - anyone’s money, not just my own. Why should criminal incompetence be rewarded?
I’m against it, because there’s no point in it.
We don’t have an income problem, we have a spending problem.
Washington doesn’t deserve any more money no matter who it comes from.
Not one damn cent more.
Maybe rich guys like Charlie Rangel wouldn’t cheat on their taxes if they weren’t so high.
Knock yourself out. There’s a bum with a sign over by I45 that’s seen by 170,000 people a day. I’m more concerned with his sign than I am with this nobody. Besides the entire discussion is old and useless. Everybody already knows all the arguments.
Liar:
There are other reasons:
1. People who earn $1M or more per year can move money to other countries very easily.
2. When you try stuff like this you never collect as much as you think.
3. Other countries have lower taxes and we need to be competitve at attracting capital not driving it away.
4. Arbitrary lines in the sand create silly disincentives which lead to poor allocations of resources.
5. We don’t have a revenue problem we have a freaking spending problem.
6. As others have said you can’t get enough from ‘the rich’ to solve any significant part of the long term problem.
7. The top 10% of tax payers already pay at least 2/3 of taxes.
8. Why do we bother?
John Stossel makes an excellent point when he speaks about Microsoft.
They didn’t pay a dime to lobbying till the government went after them for anti trust violations. Now they spend $100 million on lobbying every year.
no no no....Charlie didn’t cheat - he merely thought rental income was legit tax free money — I mean, I believe that. Don’t you? /s
I’ve heard Rush make the same point about Microsoft. Kind of supports my theory that the only way to have true campaign finance reform is to shrink government to the point that government is not worth buying for corporations.
I mean think about it: has money and power ever been separated in the history of the world? NO. And it never will. Our founders had the right idea: keep that centralized power SMALL. It’s the only way.
It is not about redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. It is redistribution of wealth from the private sector to the govt so that they can spend it on ever expanding bureaucracies and crony companies such as Solyndra.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.