[Torie]

One would hope that this rather procative piece from the Left will provoke more thoughtful responses than Bandwidth wasting bon mots. That hope is probably futile. In any event, I happen to agree with much of it. But then I am fairly liberal on tax policy matters. The richer should pay more.

[Paul Atreides]

Why should the rich pay more?

[Keith]

idiots...when did ANY conservative publication ever advocate MORE taxes for ANYBODY...lying sacks of dung...

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Not having read the WSJ editorial, it's difficult to judge the article. I would support a new way for the gov't to raise revenues. Such as a national sales (consumption) tax. The current system can only create more bitterness, 'class envy' and, of course, more criminals.

[ClearCase_guy]

But the rich do pay more. How can you miss that? The poor in this editorial pay 4% of their income in taxes, the rich pay close to 50% of their income in taxes. I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but I believe the top 5% in income pay 50% of all taxes collected in the US.

The WSJ point is solid. If poor people can vote themselves goodies from the government, yet pay only 4% of their income in taxes, then they will vote for lots and lots (and lots) of goodies for themselves. Just so long as other people pay for them.

It should be clear that this is unsustainable over the long haul.

[chaosagent]

How much more should the rich pay? How much is their fair share.

Right now the top 50% of taxpayers0 pay over 96% of the taxes.

The top 5% pay over 56% of the taxes. How much do you think they should be paying? 60%, 70%, 100%.

How much?

[Asclepius]

... The richer should pay more ...

Who gets to decide who's rich?

[Benrand]

"The Journal is perhaps most famous for helping to transform supply-side economics from a crank doctrine ridiculed by mainstream economists and rejected by Washington policymakers into a crank doctrine ridiculed by mainstream economists yet embraced by Washington policymakers"

Has this idiot ever taken an econ course? I swear, these loudmouths are completely ignorant on economics but they have it in their head that they are automatically knowledgeable. I wrote a guy from the LA Times, Doyle McManus, about his ignorance masked by faux-confidence on the subject of price caps. He had one econ course in school but proclaimed that someone was wrong because they didn't embrace price caps.

Mr. Chait, Supply Side economics works, crusty Keyensianism doesn't, and you wouldn't want half of the techniques in Keynesisnism enacted anyway, for one, tax cuts. See Kennedy, John F.

[The Raven]

The detrimental effects of the tax system are beyond a liberals comprehension.

We need to just talk "spending" with them with simple no's

[Cicero]

I haven't read the article, but I would probably have agreed with it. The point is that if everyone paid a reasonable share of taxes--which for low-paid workers would still be much less--then they would not be so eager to vote for every imaginable government handout. If you create a large class of people who never pay taxes, then of course they don't much care how much everyone else has to pay.

Actually, 4% is probably enough for a low-income worker. When I listen to my kids complain the first time they have to pay income taxes on a part-time job, I find that the experience quickly teaches them that taxes are unpleasant.

[Torie]

Yep. the below surprised me as well. If the tax collections in the US are similar to what they were in 1985, it appears that the system is regressive overall, assuming you assume half the corporate tax is a sales tax. It is probably less regressive today somewhat due to the income tax credit, and talking all those low income folks off the income tax rolls that the WSJ worries so much about.

Here is the poop from Joel B. Slemrod. "Slemond is the Paul W. McCracken Collegiate Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan, and director of the Office of Tax Policy Research at the Michigan Business School. He was senior economist for tax policy in President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers.

...

"Chart 1 illustrates the progressivity of the overall U.S. tax system in 1985 (the latest year for which this information is available), according to two different assumptions about the shifting of taxes. Under assumption A the average tax rate generally increased with income, suggesting a generally progressive tax. Under assumption B the average tax rate actually is lowest for families in the highest income decile. The key difference between the two results is that B assumes that half of the corporation income tax is shifted to consumers, in the form of higher prices, while A assumes that all of it is borne by shareholders, who are generally high-income taxpayers. Chart 1 illustrates both the importance of the shifting assumptions and the fact that, even though the federal income tax by itself is progressive, its progressivity is overwhelmed by less progressive levies such as sales taxes and, to a lesser extent, the payroll tax."

[groanup]

"The richer should pay more"

I'll paraphrase Walter Williams. 'If I want to get some work done on my computer I could hire you for say $200 to do it. However, if you want to clear $200 and you are in a 30% tax bracket you will only take home $140 dollars. For that sum you are unwilling to do the work. For me to hire you anyway I would have to pay you $285 so you could net $200. I am unwilling to pay that sum. So no transaction takes place and NO taxes are collected period.'

Taxes either stymie economic activity or alter behavior in order to avoid them or both. Lower taxes reward wealth creation (jobs). Higher taxes reward politicians with the votes of the beneficiaries of government hand-outs. And those beneficiaries are no longer exclusively the poor. They are the legions of big government at all levels whose jobs depend on taxes.

[Mr. Mojo]

But then I am fairly liberal on tax policy matters. The richer should pay more.

Then you should be overjoyed with the current "progressive" system. But even if our current system of thievery received a complete and much needed overhaul and a flat tax was implemented, the "richer" would still pay more --- a lot more.

[Rodney King]

One would hope that this rather procative piece from the Left will provoke more thoughtful responses than Bandwidth wasting bon mots. That hope is probably futile. In any event, I happen to agree with much of it. But then I am fairly liberal on tax policy matters. The richer should pay more.

Actually, you are a liberal on most matters. I, too, beleive the richer should pay more. That would be the case under a flat tax.

Anyway, the issue of some people not paying taxes is a real one. If we ever reach the situation where 50% of the people don't pay much in taxes, this country will be in deep doo doo as those 50% will always vote for more and more spending.

[bribriagain]

Do you also believe in the "I was born white, so I have an unfair competitive advantage, therefor I must pay more" school of thought?

[537 Votes]

One would hope that this rather procative piece from the Left will provoke more thoughtful responses than Bandwidth wasting bon mots.

But then I am fairly liberal on tax policy matters. The richer should pay more.

Maybe we could start with Mark Rich, the billionaire who was pardoned by Bill Clinton for $250 million in tax evasion. And no, my friend, a specific, concrete example does not fall under the categorization of 'bon mot.' It's not a matter of my opinion as to whether Mr. Rich (what an ironic name!) was liberated by Mr. Clinton for this amount of tax evasion. He actually done did it. It really happened. Reality is what separates the facts from the bandwidth-wasting bon mots.

. . . Maybe we could also pass federal laws requiring companies to show citizens what they actually pay in taxes. For example, Social Security and withholding taxes are itemized on my paycheck for only 50% of the amount actually paid. The other fifty percent is paid by the company which employees me, yet even though it appears on their budget as a cost of hiring people, I don't see it itemized on my paycheck . . . it appears the government is getting away with taxation without visible representation.

Perhaps also landlords should be required to show what proportion of their rent goes to pay property taxes. That would be interesting. I wonder if fewer urban-dwelling poor people would be so enthusiastic about supporting a civic 'convention center' if they knew that they were each going to end up paying hundreds of dollars for the construction out of their rent check.

Corporate and business taxes also get passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices. Perhaps there should be an accounting there as well. If 'corporate tax' really translates into 'taxing rich and poor at the same rate through higher product prices,' then it doesn't seem quite as egalitarian a policy as Tom Daschle and Teddy Kennaquidick would have it to be.

I agree, the poor pay a lot of taxes. As one of the working poor, I would like to see liberals explain why their emphatic shouting for 'tax the rich' in practice ultimately and invariably means secretly taxing the poor and middle classes, while limosine liberals seem to always grow richer and richer.

No poor people running the New York Times, hmmmmm? (Or is that a 'bon mot?' Well, better bon than mal, I always say!)

[tubebender]

California is facing a 35 Billion dollar dedicit which equals 45% of the spending budget. One reason is the preponderance of the taxes are paid by the wealthy few and when they took a hit the tax paying base was too narrow and revenue plunged.