GOP to Jobless: Drop Dead
 

That's the catchy title of a column by WAPO business writer, Steven Pearlstein. The column contains plenty of myth busting about the effect of raising the marginal tax rates for those making more than $250,000.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see an honest congressman come out and say that we can't raise taxes on the top incomes because our masters will not permit it.

Regards,

D-Ray

I was glad to see Pearlstein's column, he is not the first one to dispute that $250,000 small business bullshit, but the GOP keeps trotting it out at every turn - Dr. Goebbels would be proud.

"The macro view, from the forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers of St. Louis, is that not extending tax cuts for high-income households would reduce gross domestic product growth by - drumroll here - two-tenths of one percent in each of the next two years. And the difference in the unemployment rate? A whopping one tenth of one percent!"



Where is the Democrat who will stand up every time they say such nonsense and yell "Liar! You are lying! The words you are saying to the American People right now are LIES!" No, don't shout it DURRING a televised speech like they do, shout it in your sound bites to the media.

Just feeding my need to be devils advocate here:

Let's just tax anyone making over $250K at 100%. Let's just quit messing around and do it right once and for all. Those rich bastards probably just screwed someone else and took their money and called it "making a profit", so lets just fix 'em and tax 'em at 100%.

"...let high-end tax rates return to where they were during the Clinton years and use the $65 billion in additional income over the next two years for tax breaks for businesses that increase investments or hire new employees. After that, the extra revenue would go toward deficit reduction."

Well, hell, Health Care Reform takes virtually all of top earners’ ordinary income tax to 44.6 percent, starting in 2013 with the increase in the Medicare tax. Going back now to the Clinton-era rates of 40.8 and 43.7 percent in the top brackets would essentially give Obama his wish a couple years early.

And does anyone really believe that the BEST path to deficit reduction is raising taxes? We're already in a recession, so lets take money out of the economy where it might actually be put to use, just so we can make government flush?

It's gonna take both taxes and cuts. Your numbers sound fishy to me. What is the 44.6% composed of? Most of the numbers I've seen shows that actual rate collected from the top incomes in the 20's.

Regards,

D-Ray

Well, I know you're playing devil's advocate, but no one said anything like that. I've defended, for instance, Reagan dropping the top tax rate from 70 to 50%. At that time, 50% top bracket was considered an historic move down. I'm not buying this 46% rate you speak of, but what if that were the case? It's still lower than the rate Reagan initially dropped it to.

It's not an all or nothing deal. It's kind of silly to say that anything above 30% might as well be 100%.

If this 46% number is legit, I'd like to see some documentation. I might could think that was high. Not sure. But I don't believe it unless I see it. I haven't heard anything close to that.

Take care,

Ed

Limbaugh says the rich don't pay taxes anyways.

He sure does a lot of bitching about paying taxes for someone who doesn't pay them anyways..................

Dave

To begin with it is "anyone with a taxable income of $250,000" which is a hell of a lot different that earning $250,000. The broad assumption that all those rich folk spend their money creating jobs is laughable. Oh well, maybe they do create jobs, in Nice or Cannes, or anywhere along the Riviera.

Poor people sure don't create jobs.

You have found such a man? :)

Pete

Yes they do. A lot of people have become rich providing substandard housing and jalopies to poor people. They will use underlings to deal with the riff raff whose money they take. Poor people still buy groceries. In many cases, the poor will pay higher prices for goods or services, because they can't afford to buy them in bulk. Because there are plenty of poor people, those who target those markets have plenty of customers. I don't think Sam Walton got rich by catering to the yuppies. Wal-Mart has created thousands of crappy jobs (to replace the jobs lost in local stores that were run out of business by Wally Martindales.)

Regards,

D-Ray