There are a lot of misconceptions and mis-representations going on in this discussion but, the concept presented by Tom Hartman is totally correct. The idea that having a progressive tax somehow can hurt productivity or creativity is just plan nuts.

The salary's and bonuses paid to the corporate elite for doing such a great job exporting American jobs is obscene. Our taxpayer supported Universities are loaded with foreign exchange students and the creative commodity ideas generated in these fine institutions are being exported to third world countries to develop and produce for American Corporate profit.

WJM - your right on about Reagan a person I heard described as a "Likable Dunce" that was controlled by the power brokers around him.

Wealth is not "relative." I could give a rats ass if someone who has a billion dollars has "incentive" to make another billion. It's not worth 45 million people going without health care and millions more slipping into poverty. I'd like to see less, not more incentive for someone to gain obscene amounts of wealth. Bill Gates went to a private high school that cost more in tuition at the time than Harvard. He didn't risk anything --he still would have been rich if his company failed. You're not risking anything if you know that your basic needs will be taken care of --few if any "self made" millionaires ever risked having a place to stay or the ability to eat or see a doctor if they need to.

Also this idea that all money that goes to the government is squandered and wasted what's up with that? At least it's wasted right here in the USA giving people here jobs and not in some Kayman Island fake subsidiary then invested in Saudi weapons companies. I trust the Government with my money (which has no value at all except because the government enforces and backs it up) a lot more than I trust Enron with it. At least in a democracy you can vote for government officials. You can't vote for corporations.

To all these "self made" people talking about moving to another country that "lets you keep more of your wealth" Good luck with that. Those countries are called "third world countries." Have fun there. Our top 1% income earners pay less than any other industrialized democracy.

No one is "self made" if you worked and put yourself through college then a series of government grants made that school affordable to you. If you got sick during that time, there's no way you could have paid for health insurance all by yourself. Your 6-figure income now depends on billions of dollars worth of government infrastructure that we're all paying for. When it comes time to pay back, don't be such a frigging baby.

I don't think the point is anything about "how much money do you need" Obviously some people need more money than others. Bill Gates needs more money than I do. I think thats fine. But lets face it, if he paid 90% on all money earned above 4 million, he'd still have billions. Let you forget, the tax rate was highest during the time when the middle class was growing the fastest, the 50's.
What "EVIL purposes" are you talking about? The white house is already spending more on "evil purposes" than I could ever dream of. I suppose making mass transit work and free health care for all might seem evil to some. Probably the same people who have been raking in all the dough since 1981.
And lets take all private money out of the election process - make it all publicly funded. All software used in the election process is public domain. All elections will have a physical (paper) audit trail, and every vote counted as many times as it takes to get the auditors get the same result. I think we should have "congress day" at least once a month where the President has to answer questions in a joint session of congress. And he has to alternate taking questions from all parties. We'll let the parties decide who gets to ask the questions. And he can ask questions of Congress as well, but only after actually ANSWERING the question asked him/her.
Also, any time a government official speaks in congress or to the American people in the course of their jobs, THEY ARE AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED TO BE UNDER OATH. That includes press secretaries.
The next time Dick wants to tell us one of his WMD lies or "Connected to Al Kaida" stories, he can go directly to jail.
Bush and company ought to be turned over to the International Courts for processing - after they serve time in American Prisons. After which we can un-privatize the prison system. We make DNA testing a requirement before anyone can be thrown in jail for any kind of violent crime. If someone is found to be innocent later, we pay them for time served and let them go. And they get free psychological assistance if they need it.
People don't need to go to jail for drug use. Not even Rush - even though he should, if only because he's said so many times over the years that drug users ought to be locked up forever.
In addition, we need to eliminate NAFTA, CAFTA, our relationship with the WTO and probably some other international trade groups. All trade should be subject to tariffs - until the countries who want to trade with us have equivilent labor costs, environmental costs, safety costs etc.
America is a wealthy country. So is Saudi Arabia. We keep going down the path we are going and we will have the same kind of middle class as Saudi Arabia. Virtually none.
There are lots of examples of "pure" capitalist economies - we call them Third World Countries. I might not mind visiting some of them, but I don't want to have to live in one.
If we do our part as educated citizens in a democracy the govenment will not abuse any tax dollars we give them.

Paul, I did not offer a character reference for the World Bank. They have a provided a statistic which I don't dispute. Suffice it to say that we are wealthier than most people in India, Africa, and China (for the time being).

The world's poor would look at one of America's citizens making about $30,000 per year and think that they are obscenely wealthy, just as we might look at someone who makes a million a year and thimk that they are obscenely wealthy.

My point was that it is not fair to look at anyone who is comparitely wealthier and think they should hand it over. Especially when handing it over means that most of it will be squandered, and a lot of it will be used for EVIL purposes.

My point is not that America is wealthy, my point is that the government will abuse whatever tax dollars they are given.

The system is screaming for reform. I would not start with higher taxes.

I think a number of people are missing the point.

Canuckchuck:

The real question is how much money do you need? I agree with you that working four times as hard to make twice as much is ridiculous. How much do you need? Unbridled greed leads companies to charge what they know they can get. We need an entire overhaul of our economic paradigm. We claim to be a country that "lets the market decide" but we continue to allow five corporations to own and gobble up all competition. Our housing market is through the roof ridiculous. Prices have gone up because we let them. We work as hard as we do because we are told we NEED, not want or desire, but need to have x, y, and z in order to happy.

You slipped something in one of your answers that is the real key:

"just forget your family and life, stay at work 16 hours a day, and we will pay you double"

Our society has inverted our value system so we value what we can give our families over our actual families. Today we found out kids think food tastes better wrapped in a McDonalds wrapper, whether the food comes from McDonalds or not. We are brainwashed to think the way we do. Brainwashed by corporations and advertiser with the blessing of our government.

If the choice comes down to living in a country spiraling into third world status, with a rising rate of unemployed, poverty stricken, uninsured, unheathy, with a rising infant mortality rate, with a crumbling infrastructure and corporate control of our government and our every personal decision, or one that takes care of its citizens, that raises us all up, that leads the world in its ideas, its innovation, its discovery, that encourages the smallest of us to take on big business and corporations - truly encouraging a free market... A free market of ideas. I'll pay my share. Gladly.

jstevens: The World Bank is far, far, far, from being the friend of the progressive movement. To trust their metrics at face value, is like trusting the WTO on economic justice, Bush administration on science, or Cheney & Rove on compassion. CD is a progressive site, not the Drudge Report.

Fact #1: The single greatest expense most households encumber is housing.
Fact #2: Americans have, of late, "saved negatively" and not owned so little real equity since the Great Depression.

Those two issues alone ought to raise the alarm.

WJM: thank you for taking the time and effort to present the FACTS on Reagan's presidency, as some have called him a B actor and great salesman when what he was helping to sell was the last of America's conscience.

Terrific discussion here -- well worth reading the many comments. Even those from the trolls added to the discourse -- Good job, gang.

As an NYC activist (who is unable to take advantage of Thom's free movie event today in the City due to work hours and my uptown location), I see the article as something to pass around to friends (via blog and listserv) for more discussion. But I will also link to and urge people to read the comments. The Reagan illumination alone is terrific. -- I tend to bookmark comments that document my positions, in this case that Reagan was an awful president (and in another case that Bush and Cheney have given us lots of great reasons to impeach them). (I wonder who is checking our labels and public bookmarks....)

I shall also encourage people to send Thom's article to their Representatives and Senators. Mine go out tonight. Let's together continue to discuss this issue so it doesn't go away, dog days of August or not!! "Tag, you're it!"

Thanks all! (Even you sad little trolls!) Peace hugs!

Many on the right are lost in denial. I think they never really grasped the ideals behind their philosophy. Hang in there Mike, we'll help you through it.

RE: TIP O' THE HAT TO LIL' "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE" MIKEY

mikeasmith August 7th, 2007 3:03 pm
"Keep up the great job showing just how nutty y'all are!
Kind regards, Mike A. Smith"

Keep up the great job showing "compassionate conservative" reactions to death and bereavement.

Mike Simth: I suggest to you that the reason you won't put up any arguments is because you don't have any. Typical right wing response, no response at all. And you know what? That just isn't good enough. I and alot of others just aren't taking that snotty put down as an answer to the question.

Please. Educate us, since you are so much smarter than we are. Show us the errors of our ways. Teach us what YOU know, and then we will all follow you to the ends of the argument. But since all you did was insult, I suggest to you that you are just like the rest of the right wing, showing up unarmed at a battle of wits. Usually you guys at least get in an argument before you run away flinging your own poo, but you went RIGHT for the insult, which tells us that you have even less than the usual rightie.

You certainly won't find the truth swimming in the Faux Noise bilgewater.

"Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault." -- Thom Hartmann

I am so happy to read the above statement, as it shows -- plainly and clearly -- just how utterly wacked out the nutroots left is.

It would be a waste of my time to detail the reasons why the opinion above is so shoddy, as clearly it was written by a mind impervious to reason. For those of you interested, the truth is out there. Hint: you won't find it by swimming in the fever swamps of far-left websites.

Keep up the great job showing just how nutty y'all are!

Kind regards,
Mike A. Smith

GFK August 7th, 2007 6:55 am

You present no evidence or even opinion other than slurs and cheers. So glad you are so sure, but I'll probably never know you personally. So why should I or anyone here care what you think? A little substance would be helpful.

Sorry, Paul, but compared to the rest of the world we are wealthy. That is not to say we aren't on a downward spiral or perhaps an economic house of cards, but according to the World Bank, the US is the fourth wealthiest country.

I have lots of things I don't need and I would venture a guess that since most of the people on this website have a computer, most of them have things they don't need, as well. Compare our lifestyle to that of the average Guatemalan and we are wealthy. We have surplus food, clothing, money to spend on vacations, movies, etc.

In the town where I live, a bond issue was passed to give every public school a big chunk of money to spend on building projects. Guess what they all did---built new gymnasiums. Not remodel the old one, or put in chemistry labs, the money was all spent on new gyms.

It is not reasonable to keep throwing money at broken systems.

Cheer up those of you who want higher taxes. With the war in Iraq,(no expense spared to save Junior's ego) a hugh debt financed by the not so friendly Chinese, many jobs outsourced, etc. etc. higher taxes will be on the way. I won't be holding my breath to see all the improvements in infrastructure it brings.

I STRONGLY dispute the claim that Americans are so wealthy. We consume a lot of crap, there's no question about that.

But our single-greatest expense is real estate. Since Americans "saved negatively", have gone through more than one era of mass foreclosures, and have not owned so little equity since the Great Depression, it's dubious how wealthy we really are.

Certainly this remains a land of great opportunity for multi-national banks, large insurance companies, and energy/weapons contractors. But just how wealthy is the X Generation compared to their parents? Their grandparents?

My grandfather got 200 acres of land by the time he was 30. I can barely afford my suburban plot today. Sure, I've got modern conveniences and more crap than I know what to do with. But actual earning power? Real estate equity?

Let's not make ourselves out to be wealthier than we are.

There's a strip mall that's been built near my house with like 6 stores, and 10 pad sites. After 6 months it's still sitting vacant. How many businesses are still profitable enough to pay your inflated home mortage -- and shop space rent -- in a Big Box era?

Wealth, shmealth. We're 3/4ths back toward the serfdom/lord arrangement.

If you look at the global situation, many of the people who consider themselves poor in this country are actually wealthy compared to the rest of the world. Therefore, you could argue that an American citizen who makes about 30,000 a year and supports a family of four is part of the global wealthy elite. How much of that money does he/she really need to survive? There are many people in the world who live off of about a thousand dollars a year or perhaps nothing. Here in America, you can live off of nothing because we have homeless shelters, open door kitchens, etc. Therefore, this family of four should be able to give a big chunk of their income to the government to disperse as needed to the world's poor. Don't worry, the government will take good care of your money. It will use some of it to eradicate poverty. It will use some of it to wage necessary wars, and prop up companies like Exxon Mobil, because oil is very very important; we must make sure Exxon is always able to provide it for us. It will use some of your money to build stadiums because the government knows what you need.
A small portion of your money will go to essential services like roads and sewers, because without these services, people would rebel. A small portion will go to people who really need money, but an equal portion will go to people who just don't want to be tied down to a job. It's hard to smoke pot and use meth all day if you're tied down to a job.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith

David Stockman (Ronny RayGun's budget director) didn't call it "Voodoo Economics" for nothing.

A caller to Thom's show also made the point that when the 70% tax rate was in effect, there was much more effort by the very wealthy to more effeciently investments that would defer the earnings.

GFK I'd like to see you take Reagan's America & reign....take it away far far away. along with the myths & fairy-tales about him. 2nd worse president in my life.

GFK: I am sorry, but I really can't let that passs.

So Reagan was a great president, eh? HOW? Here is my list of what Reagan Did "for" this country. See if you have any answer for my list, or if you will just remain a waste of human thought.

When Reagan came into office, we had the higest level of imported raw materials and the highest rate of export of manufactured goods in the world. He sent us on a course of everything being built on paper, and not on actually DOING anything. Since this turn around, we are 100% the opposite. Now we are the largest exporter of raw goods and thie largest importer of finished goods.

Reagan came into office and immediately started union busting. It was the unions that gave us things like the minimum wage, the protections in the workplace we USED to have, and the idea of a fair wage for a fair day's work. Unions are the ONLY real protections that the American worker has had for a hundred years, and now they are decimated thanks to his policies.

There were those in the intelligence field that were predicting the fall of the Soviet Union, and had evidence to back it up. Reagan only hurried it up by a few years, and bankrupted US in the process. Yeah, THAT was a good move. We STILL haven't paid back what HE brought us, our first 5 TRILLION dollar debt, up to 9 trillion thanks to W.

Add to that the elimination of the fairness doctrine, the turning out onto the streets fo the mentally ill, the tax cuts that allowed more and more money to go into the hands of fewer and fewer, the bad mouthing of the American worker, who until that time had been seen as the best workers in the world, the Iran/Contra affair, El Salvador, Nicaragua, James Watt (sec of the interior who said that Jesus was coming back and would be pissed if we didn't use it all up first), and the turning of American against American and you have one hell of a run on sentence.

Honestly, I sat through all 8 years of the Reagan administration and watched him dismantle the country I grew up in, and I for one don't see your attitude as being anything but a delusion. Reagan did more damage to this country than anyone until Clinton with NAFTA and the media consolidation bull and now W and his insanity.

So you are an FDR hater, eh? WHY? All he did was to solve the problem that the REPUBLICANS had given us called the GREAT depression. He made it worse? HOW? By making sure that Americans who wanted one could actually FIND a job that brought them out of poverty? By increasing the middle class to include more people in it than ANY republican had done since Teddy Roosevelt, a BIG champion of things like a living wage, and decent working hours? Or was it by actually building an infrastructure that allowed this country to start to flourish? Or was it by ending WWII in less time than it's taken W to even secure the road from the airport? What EXACTLY did FDR do to equal the damage that Reagan did? How EXACTLY did FDR make the REPUBLICAN depression worse?

Reagan is the SECOND worst president in my lifetime. W takes that title in spades. Reagan turned this country against itself and that is something that NO leader in ANY country can be forgiven for. He was a nasty, sorry individual who hated how real people were getting ahead in this country, and did what he could to stop it from happening again. DOes THAT equal being a great president?

Sorry, but Reagan was NOT a good president. ANY president who does what he can to play divide and conquer games with the population does NOT deserve any acolades at all. And Reagan was the ultimate in divide and conquer until Rove and W came along.

You are a very short sighted person who doesn't know what the truth of the matter is. I suggest that you do a little research somewhere other than Faux Noise channel and find out just what it really is that you are supporting. It's only the beginnings of the most damage this country has ever sustained. And it's going to be REALLY difficult to undo the damage the alzheimer's president did to this country.

Your opinion disgusts me.

Canuckchuck wrote,

"After all my hard work and sacrifice, should I now have to hand over 90% of my salary to the fucking goverment that never once did anything for me???"

You seem to be implying that they are going to tax your entire 6-digit figure at 90%. 90% is a marginal rate. A progressive tax scheme would only tax the portion of annual income over, say, $1 million at 70-90%. Why does anyone need over $1 million per year anyway? For that matter why aren't you happy with the 6 digit figure you are earning. Why in the world do you need more? The only purpose that I can see for anyone wanting multi-6 digit or 10-digit incomes is to accumulate disporportionate, undemocratic power over others, while displaying that power through consumption of far more than their share of our planets non-renewable resources.

I have a masters degree too, plus a PE license in civil engineering. I likewise worked my way through all my education, and I'm perfectly happy with my comfortable 5-digit salary plus good leave and retirement benefits (thanks to it being a fed. govt. job). I don't need any more.

But, also I'll never forget the role of government - chiefly the very affordable state university system that Reagan's philosophy has since destroyed. I also am very thankful for the unemployment benefits that were available at a few critical times in my life. A kid doing what I did must sell themself to a lifetime of debt-slavery.

What constantly astonishes me is how Americans who are not multimillionaires keep electing politicians who espouse policies that are totally inimical to their own economic interests. The Republicans since Raygun have totally been captured by the money-grubbing elites and, if we are to judge by the friends and associates of the Democrats since Clinton I, so have the Democrats. There is no hope for Americans unless there is a grassroots revolution but Americans are so lulled into superficial comfort and so mentally lazy that I do not see any sign of an uprising, Common Dreams posters' opinions notwithstanding.

Perhaps a start would be to revert to Washington's city airport to 'National'; who the hell wanted it to be named after Raygun, the destroyer of American infrastructure?

RE: THREE NOTES:
1) Iraq invasion diverts progressives from this
2) right wing Democrats are complicit in this
3) it's not just the rich - but an anti-Federal right wing mass base

1) This is what the Iraq invasion and attacks on civil liberties have diverted progressive energies from confronting.

2) This is what the right wing Democratic, Democratic Leadership Council-dominated Democrats not only avoid confronting - by rejecting the class warfare realities of public policy -but have supported in their policies, which are 'the-same-but-less.'

3) Not only rich Democrats and Republicans have advanced this concealed class warfare agenda (which rejects talking about it as 'class warfare'): the mass base of the right wing has long sought to destroy the key Federal role in public infrastructure maintenance. Grover Norquist's infamous statement, "I don't want to abolish government, I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" (2001), is not just capitalist but expresses the view of a right wing base hostile to Federal spending on infrastructure, whether or not it affects their pocketbook.

Although this mass base has received only crumbs from the mega-capitalist feast - in 'tax breaks' - that does not matter to this group.

Finally (ok, so this is note 4)...it is not only the rich or a crazed right wing base that is the problem - imo, the essential Federal role has never gone far enough in providing for basic needs; and the consequent failures of Federal government - that has never invested what was necessary to prove and validate that role - has ultimately undermined public confidence in it.

In the state I live in every time a decent Democrat with some substance runs it's bring out the big guns for the Republican's! They wind up getting tarred and feathered with the 'tax and spend' or 'raise your taxes' Democrat label and people buy into that slop every time. It's down right sickening. It's always a landslide for some 'slime ball' Republican! They would rather put a crook in office than have someone who might raise taxes a little! It's unreal how stupid most people have gotten. And I don't think it's only the state I live in. Who do they think is going to pay for government? The good tooth fairy???? Who do they think is going to pay for new roads, services, sewers and etc? I am so sick of the 'borrow and spend' mentality of the Robber Baron Republican's I could scream! This country needs to be reeducated into the real world. Instead of that fantasy world the Republican's have built. If the taxpayer isn't going to pay for it...it's going to fall apart!!!! End of story!

Peoplefirst: Yes, I forgot to mention that our system and taxation and government should not allow for the wealthy elite to rape and pillage other countries.

Getting back to the "hard-working" wealthy, I would challenge those defending the wealthy to find a CEO of any sort who has to work as hard as a dairy farmer, a career which demands attention 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and offers no benefits and very little in the way of wages. If such a person could be found, I would challenge the one who finds him to find a "hard-working" CEO who works twice as hard as a dairy farmer. Such a person would be dead from a heart attack or starving to death, but perhaps one has existed somewhere in the world to justify the exorbitant salaries of the current crop.

Sorry, my sympathies are always with the neediest of our society. If we ever get to the point where basic needs become a right, I won't have any problems with the wealthy anymore.

Ronald Reagan did more for the establishment of peace, prosperity and freedom in this country, and in this world, than any of your New Deal and Great Society heroes.

It is laughable that almost two (2) decades after the fall of The Evil Empire (aka The Soviet Union), there are still folks who long for its collectivism, and would seek to impose those failed policies on Americans.

I'll take Reagan's America over Roosevelt's (FDR)(he made the depression worse), Kennedy's (an abject failure as a President), Johnson's (socialism run amok) or Carter's (the biggest loser and worst president ever, other than Bill Clinton) ANY DAY.

GFK

I say simply let all the Freedom Hating Republicans move to Dubai. Then after the scum have left, sit down and figure out what would be a fair tax. As long as our country has freedom hating, greed loving, cowardly republicans a true democracy will never work. They will always figure out ways to corrupt the system.

pavroviandog & Chicanery

Exactly (although Mr. Gates gained his
fortune by - some say, a little crook - and
good luck - it basically had nothing to do
with his intelligence or hard work).

Ignoring the "lazy", "welfare queens", or
whatever pejorative adjective you wish to
ascribe to those taking advantage of "The
System", there are far more people working
within it who are contributing what they
are able. How many of the "rich" are
willing to clean toilets? Work in the
fields? Or any of the other so-called
lowly jobs that are still a vital part of
keeping a society functioning? Do the
people doing these jobs deserve any less
than a decent place to live, food on the
table, healthcare when they or their
children are ailing? Do their children
deserve a lesser education?

When the least are provided for, then I
probably don't care how much money the
rich make and keep (as long as they don't
send the others off to fight their wars.)

But I have a real problem with a society
led by a small group of well-off elites
that primarily have their own interests
at heart.

We have had many years now to seee how the Reagan tax cuts have performed, and I do not believe many feel like it has been a successful experiment. Most are still waiting for the "trickle down " idea to start. It seems that history shows that a progressive tax in some form as those mentioned here is the only way to have a "fair & balanced" society which is the only kind that will last. Time to try a little "trickle up" experiment again similar to the one FDR put in place. I do not remember of too many well off people not surviving in that period of time. It simply is not sustainable to have more billionaires every year while the majority of working people are barely able to buy the necessities of life without a handful of plastic which only makes it worse for them.

Disengaging healthcare responsibilities from the corporate world has also been an incredible yoke to the American people. I know dozens of people who would quit their jobs if there actaully was a national health service.

I'd settle for a system of taxation whereby everyone in the country is guaranteed healthy food to eat, affordable housing, the right to see a doctor on a regular basis without having to worry about going bankrupt, affordable and ecologically friendly methods of transportation (including bridges that don't fall into rivers), the right to educate themselves without having to go into debt for the rest of their lives, and the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, due process, etc.) If that means 90% is the top rate, so be it. Sorry to those arguing against progressive taxation, but those who are "earning" the most money in this society should be paying the most because they are reaping the greatest rewards.

Say whatever you want about hard work and all that, but let's get real. It's not what you know, it's WHO you know. Most jobs at the high levels are handed out to someone that someone in the company knows beforehand. And once you're at that eschelon of business, it's alot easier to stay there than it was to get there. Funny thing about those who loan money, they don't always look at whether you succeed or not when deciding who to loan money to. You would be amazed at how many big money loans get defaulted on. In fact, the loans given to the poor in Asia in the micro loan programs have FAR higher repay rates than big money loans in America do. Like about 90-95%. Bankers here would KILL for such customers. Thing is they could have them, but they keep screwing around with the big money boys who have proven to default.

Unless you do it yourself, and USING every available assistance possible (and so clearly NOT on your OWN, as some like to say so often), you won't make it very big. At least working for yourself, the money that comes in is yours. And while you may starve, at least you're not kissing anyone's ass and genuflecting. If you are going to work for an asshole, it might as well be YOU. Then, if you are lucky, you will have a tradition on your hands that the community values, means the world to you, and your children will sell off for big bucks after they run YOU out of it. Ah, the joys of business.

JerryRigged, I agree with you that there are many people who are obscenely rich without having worked hard or contributed much to society. Professional sports players come to mind along with movie stars and CEO's of big companies who make hundreds of millions while slashing the workers pensions and health insurance and outsourcing whenever possible.
I personally don't believe that any individual deserves such a salary. I think that would be a better place to begin reform--than reenacting a 70% income tax.
Giving the government more money is like giving someone with a gambling addiction more money. No amount is ever enough, and there is no amount above which they will start spending responsibly.

Thom, in his article, proposes taxing incomes over $3 million at 70%, yet at least 1 person replying is concerned about having to pay 90% on his 6 figure (i.e. less the $1 million) income. Didn't you read the original article?

By the way, while the 70s were sluggish, that being largely a hangover from the Vietnam war, the 50s and 60s were a time of rapid economic growth, with most of the gains going to people at the bottom of the income scale. It wasn't all a matter of taxes though; unions were much stronger then, and the minimum wage, in real terms, was higher.

Again, I am so impressed by the caliber of this debate---which towers above so-called presidential debates with all their poll-driven empty rhetoric and shallow sound bites. All the thoughts posted here--however wild--are intelligent and impassioned. Though we differ in opinions, I can see we're all on the same page.

Perhaps we can take a detour to probe the following:

1) the nature of hard work for an employee/wage earner vs the hard work of the entrepreneur/business owner. The former has a finite reward and depends solely on the use of his/her time. The entrepreneur stands to gain exponentially from the same hours; the difference is that he/she has leverage through the hard work/time that his employees dedicate to the enterprise. No matter how "hard=time" everyone works, their fortunes are all beholden to the collective work of the enterprise (don't go crazy over the "c" word here). So, Mr. Gate gained his good fortune, through hard work and the hard work of others; had he tried to do that all by himself, even working 80-hour weeks, he still could not have produced all this wealth. Of course, JK Rowlings wrote a few books by herself and managed to amass a fortune; still, without her agent, publisher, graphics designers, etc she may not have amassed so much (at least, so fast).

2) the nature of value, more specifically what constitutes a human-scale level of comfort vs level of consumption that excedes that comfort. One has to differentiate between the widgets that have true value from those that have a super-inflated, superimposed value...let's talk of sneakers?

3) how easily we can skew numbers/statistics. A 50% tax levied on a $20,000 salary is not comparable to a 50% tax on $1 million. The latter can live in dignified comfort while the former can only live enslaved by the uncertainties and fickleness of daily life (just look around and you will see what's happened to the middle-class and 4-job families who work very, very hard).

4) the psychology of money and investing. A person earning $100 million a year doesn't have the same incentive to work hard because "he has arrived." Most likely, he will invest his money while sitting by the pool and he will reap a handsome well-deserved return through his business acumen. The employee or entrepreneur who earns $200,000/year may still have that "hunger-for-success" or incentive to work hard, and more importantly, to INNOVATE. The value he creates with his "hard" work will contribute to society and its progress. The exception to the rule would be the Steve Jobs of the world; but that type of character is more driven by the intrinsic value of the work than by its rewards.

Lastly, regarding investing in school/training...look around and you will see many educated unemployed, outsourced engineers, etc.

Impeach!Impeach!Impeach!,,,,STIR UP THIS HEN HOUSE!!!....It might give us a fighting chance if we have the cajones to take it. We will call it "WE THE PEOPLE'S 9/11 RESPONSE".

Re: Senator Bernie Sanders comments at the recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget: Thanks for speaking truth to power!!Knock 'em dead, Bernie!! Jim Nussel's answers make me feel as if he has only Bush's interests at heart and not those of the nation.Very disappointing character.He reminds me of Alberto Gonzalez in his manor with the devil-may-care attitude.

To me it comes down to wants versus needs, necessities versus luxuries. We can all agree on what it takes to have a comfortable life, anything up and above that is subject to a consumption tax.

While we are at it, I am for a functional progressive income tax. The are no brackets, it is based on a function that determines how much you pay by how much you make. Dependant and independent variables that create a curved continuous shaped boundary.

At $30k (let's say) you pay no income tax. At $1 million (let's say) you pay 50% and everyone else is somewhere on the curve. There are NO deductions, starting with the mortgage interest deduction.

If you are one of the people that gasped and thought "no mortgage interest deduction!" then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Start becoming part of the solution. I know you will when everyone else does...there...I knew ya could :)

I totally agree with you, Thom. We also need to peg the bottom income level for inflation. When the income tax was first enacted almost one hundred years ago, the bottom most taxable income was five thousand dollars. In today's dollars that comes to somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 70 thousand dollars. I live on a modest union pension and a reduced social security check and I had to pay about five percent of that in income taxes, not to mention all the other excise taxes and hidden taxes that take a bite out of my meager income. It seems that we are rapidly returning to the bad old days of feudalism where most of us are serfs on the corporate manor.

canuckchuck

To gage someone's value to society you must consider what they produce not what they "earn". There are leaches at all levels of the earning spectrum. The people who think the rich should not pay higher tax rates probably value their own struggle over someone elses as evidenced by their compensation. That is not how the world works for many people as JerryRigged has shown. Their are also people who benefit from our "rigged" system but still understand the unfairness of it. Profit comes mostly from exploitation of either people or resources. Many of the rich do not contribute to society at the level of those making much less money than them. We can't all be rich. For every rich man there must be many many poormen. The Rich know this. So I think your jugdement is overly simplified and based only on compensation not contribution. The pursuit of money will not create a system fair to all. I understand that my employer must make a profit off of my hard work, that doesn't give him the right to exploit me because of advantage gained from having much more money than me. Taxes attempt to control an inherently unfair socieo-economic system. The rich don't need our help!

JERRY RIGGED: Everyone who's advanced under the Bush tent FITS your point EXACTLY!

canuckchuck,

There is no such thing as "a" progressive tax. Any number of curve equations may be used. I suggest one that would kick in only at the median income level and above. It would be a clean equation with a percentage cap (e.g. 50%).

Let's put some numbers on your "work hard and make it" theory. To be blunt, the Baby Boomers are disconnected from the reality of earnings:housing today.

(1) Go to the Center for Housing Policy here: http://www.nhc.org/chp/p2p/

(2) Pick any number of occupations and metro areas.

You'll find that the median salary for most every occupation is inadequate for the median home all across the US. I'm in my late-30's, first person in the history of my family to attend college, 3 bachelor degrees, and still could barely afford a "responsible" borrowing on the median home in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Now it could be that I last graduated with a degree in Computer Science at the time of the internet stock crash, and then faced a housing marking that was likewise criminally inflated. You show me how to make 6 digits with good bennies here in Minnesota and I'll start yesterday: aside from law or medicine.

But the fact of the matter is that the god cursed carrot/stick thing isn't working any more. At this point in life I don't look down at lazy people as slothful. Rather, they're smarter than me in some ways.

zhongman, just keep your head above water? I'm sorry to hear you have such low expectaions of life.

I bet someone can work both 1000 times harder ,and 1000 times smarter, than either you, or me.

Say someone who through their own hard work and creativity builds a company from scratch that provides thousands of people good jobs and benefits that would otherwise not be there.

Or someone who invents a new technology that fundimentally changes the way we live, and works and slaves to make that technology a sucess, risking their own personal wealth and health in the process.

that person deserves all they can make.

zhongman, you said that there is only so much one person can contribute to society, I disagreed and provided examples of some who have conributed WAY more than most..

some contribute zero, some contribute an amazing amount, some are actually a net drain on society.

And it is lame to claim that the lazy are that way because of the rich.

Sure some poor people just can't get a break, and deserve one.....but some are just lazy and quite happy to leach off the rest of us....I personally know quite a few...my welfare queen sister-in-law for example finds some sucker and pumps out a new bastard every few years when they threaten to cut her off...she's been on the dole for 30 years now and has enough brats for her own baseball team

Making enough to pay my bills and keep my head above water is what I require. I'm talking about the ever widening gap in compensation for a days work. Taxes equalize that inequity. You can't take money from people who don't have it. So maybe what I'm asking you is, can you work 1000 harder than me in a day ... does Bill Gates?

Canuckchuck: "I don't want my cardiologist deciding that my life is not worth the extra $100,000 he will earn by performing my million dollar heart transplant, because it will kick him into a higher tax bracket."

I don't think most doctors in this country are that greedy. I think most of them are patriotic citizens who want to serve society. In fact, I think that most of us, not just the doctors, are patriots who are just as concerned for the common good as they are for their personal wealth. Again, I have to wonder if you're joking. I hope you are. You must be a very sad person if you are not.

try this :

using the same percentages, just take some zeros off those numbers, then tell me how fair you think it is

you earn $10,000, you keep $4,412, taxes are $5,588

you bust your ass to get ahead..put yourself through school, work long hours, kids don't remember what you look like, wife is screwing the next door neighbour cause your never home, etc.

You now earn $40,000, you get to keep $10,412 taxes are now $29,588

would it be worth it? How "progressive" is this?

innovators are few and far between and money is not their motivaion. Bill gates makes too much money because he can't need anywhere's near that much. Look at him now and you see him trying atone for this.

Are you claiming that most wealthy people rate up there with Einstien and that money was his motivation?

"Your idealism doesn't work because there is only so much one person can add to society"

Tell that to Einstien, Pasture, Edison, Bill Gates, Steven Hawkings, etc.

"And many of those lazy people have given up on hard work to prosperity because of the example of those at the top of the economical ladder and the insane amounts of money they take for a days work."

That makes no sense...people stay on welfare because Bill Gates makes too much money?

right on jstevens

I don't want my cardiologist deciding that my life is not worth the extra $100,000 he will earn by performing my million dollar heart transplant, because it will kick him into a higher tax bracket.

canuckchuck

"however, the problem is, assuming it takes 4 times the efort (and risk, and self sacrifice) to earn 4 times the money (which is logical)….."

Assuming is the problem. Most people now see the American dream as getting something for nothing ie. the lottery, gambling, stock speculation. And the system now in place caters to that ideal. That profit a company is using to pay higher and higher salaries has to come from somewhere. Where do you think it comes from? I think that the people at the top of the economic ladder are the leaches on society more so than these masses of "lazy poor people" you are refering to. Your idealism doesn't work because there is only so much one person can add to society. And many of those lazy people have given up on hard work to prosperity because of the example of those at the top of the economical ladder and the insane amounts of money they take for a days work.

I am not in the 6 figure income bracket for the record, but I will speak about the life of a close family member who is.

This man came from a poor farm family who could not afford to send him to school. He put himself through college by bussing tables while maintaining a high enough grade point average to get into medical school. After 4 years of medical school which followed four years of undergraduate school, he became an intern for one year which paid enough for him to support his family at the poverty level. He then did a three year residency before earning a decent income.
However, the decent income he earns comes with an 80 hour work week and tremendous stress. Because he works at a hospital, he renders care to everyone regardless of ability to pay. About 30% of the patients don't pay anything. He deserves the salary he earns.
Some of the comments above make it sound as though people receive high salaries through a lottery. In many cases, what is earned is based on life choices. Personally, I want pilots, engineers, physicians, etc. to be paid well. Otherwise, they will not attract the top students. Similarly, if high wage earners are punished with exorbitant taxes, they will have no incentive to work.

However, the biggest argument against increasing taxes is the mountain of evidence that the hard earned money will be wasted.

While typing my earlier post I got a series of phone calls and left out the point I was trying to make...as parts of the country became more and more affluent (I've lived in Ma and Ca in the past 30 years) over the years due to rising incomes and lower taxation; everything became more expensive, food, housing, etc. The newly rich are paying a much smaller amount today in taxes for essential services than in years past. The schools, fire departments, police departments, streets, parks and other community assets are being squeezed...cops, fire fighters and other municipal employees can't afford to live in the communities they serve. When I was a kid the teachers lived near the schools where they worked...I can't imagine one of my kids buying a $700,000 house on a teacher's income.

I've worked hard my entire life and I've always made alot of money. However I think a tax rate of 50% of everything over 800k and SS payments up to 200k would make sense. And as a business owner I want the asses of the companies who out source kicked and kicked hard...hard enough in fact that they personally move to Bangalor or China for good.

It is going to take commititted citizens and some very brave politicians to get the neccesary changes made for the future of the country and our kids.

Mark,

yes, measly when compared to the $2.3 Million actually earned, but taken to pay be wasted by big government.

I'm a realist first, leftist second.

Progressive tax does cause a disincentive to earn more. The law of diminising returns.

Say you were working 8 hours a day for $20,000/yr and being taxed for $5000 of it.(25%)

You are offered extra hours, (but no overtime)...just forget your family and life, stay at work 16 hours a day, and we will pay you double, $40,000.

however, the government is going to take $15,000 of it, (37%) leaving you with $25,000 for all your extra work

would you take the deal?

according to the scale provided by Pavrovian

earn 1 million = keep $441,200 = keep 44%,give away 36%
earn 2 million = keep $741,200 = keep 37%,give away 63%
earn 3 million = keep $941,200 = keep 31% give away 69%
earn 4 million = keep $1,041,200 = keep 26%,give away 74%

I would have to work 4 times as hard to earn only twice as much. why bother? Sounds like a bad investment of my time and effort to me. I'll just stay home and relax 3 times as much, and still have $441,200 which is still plenty enough for anyone to live comfortable on. I'll buy a boat and retire early.

Of couse the economy would be reduced by the other $3 million, probably some job loss resulting. less money for social programs...oh well.

but, if it was a flat tax. say 25%

earn 1 million, keep %750,000, pay $250,000
earn 2 million, keep 1.5 million, pay $500,000
earn 3 million, keep 2.25 million, pay $750,000
earn 4 million, keep 3 million, pay $ one million

lots of incentive to keep on working hard....still lots of money to government.

Vote out the Debt! Who do "WE" owe it to? This; the "greatest country in,the world, should be running on accumulated wealth, a Fund or a Foundation that was built up in the "Good Times" or, just put into effect by fiat, like the National Debt,,, we should be running on interest, not just barely making payments on interest, Half a Trillion Dollar Military budget??!! that is insane, Arming our enemies???!! insane! give us a break, call home ALL troops from all bases , Rebuild America for FIVE Years, no foreign AID, nothing notta, !! fix our own poopsheet, free college for all, with a cap on college presidents pay, 30 years ago, 80 percent of all schools costs were teachers salaries, 20 percent administration, NOW...20/80 a complete turn around, with less to show and more enslaviong debt for our children...insane, it is all around, money is GOD, we have lost our nations soul. (if we ever had one?) Hell will be a comfort to us all. While we kill more and enslave more of our own and others

The frequently bantered meme of the rich worked harder to get there is only sometimes true as the exception, not the rule. I watched first hand as the founder of a company forked out about $2 mil to get this company moving, captured 20 mil in venture capital, took it to IPO and slinked off with $36 mil in stocks (5 cents each option price). I was working 80 hour work weeks and no one worked harder than I did...their top executive management: Chief financial officer, a Sr VP and a VP pursuaded me to take on more work they knew I would get done despite knowing I carried more water in that company than anyone else, promising me some decent bonuses in exchange. I did the work, saved them from a huge lawsuit and then they reneged on their word for some bonus (enough to buy a decent new car). I left pretty quickly and a year and a half later they laid off more than 40 percent of the workforce and outsourced most of it in India.
Back in 1988, my group manager was making $90k/yr and was one of the laziest asses I've ever known. I was responsible for $24 mil of stuff and worked my ass off...as usual for very little relative money and lame bonuses. I left after they started making my life miserable because they let corruption go on in the plant and I was finding out about it. 2 years after I left 1800 people lost their jobs as a direct result of those managers along with supervisors with the same mindset.
Whomever believes that the wealthy and top dogs in organizations got there thru just hard work, diligence and integrity is a real fool...as I have seen for over twenty years...that success is rarely thru what you and I are misled to believe.
And the most egregious compensation scams are done thru stock options...not salaries and taxed in a whole different way...conveniently, cheaply...for them and not YOU...geez

Just one more thing before I end my participation in this discussion: another reason I support progressive taxation is because it tends to reduce social inequality. It is not JUST about raising revenue, important as that is. As Canuckchuck and others have indicated, there are other ways governments can raise revenue that are just as efficacious as income tax, for all I know. But social equality is a social good in its own right.

Signing off, with solidarity and peace to all.

Mark Marshall
Toronto

Few if any paid the 91% tax. Excessive income was reinvested in business and other capital expenditures, bonuses were given to employees and charitable contributions received large contributions.

All of these were tax deductible and provided real trickle down economics instead of the BS trickle down - greed is good Reaganomics.

Art Linkletter (spelling?) admitted he used to invest rather than pay the tax because he was in effect getting the investment at a 91% discount by avoiding taxes.

Canuckchuck: "a measly $300,000 more"?

"A measly $300,000"?

"Measly"?

You're joking - right?

Mark Marshall
Toronto

Example

two people start at the same spot in life

person one spends their spare time and money watching TV and buying toys.

person two spends their spare time and money taking night school and paying for their extra education.

person one's career is stagant, he tops out at $30,000/yr

person two progresses at their career, due to all their extra hard work, and tops out at $150,000/yr

person one say, "way to go person one, nice work, now give me half your income, so I can buy a bigger TV, then we will be even.

fat chance

hi Mark Marshall,

Not that I am anywhere near that highest bracket, I can dream though

however, the problem is, assuming it takes 4 times the efort (and risk, and self sacrifice) to earn 4 times the money (which is logical).....

Why,if I earned a million dollars, why the heck would I go to all he trouble of working 4 times as hard, taking 4 times the risk and sacrifice, to earn a measly $300,000 more?

The logial response to earn more than my initial million, wou;ld to be uses that first million to move somewhere else where success is not penalized.

the current system is not fair, where both the bottom and top levels pay nothing, though i can see the argument for an allowance for the basic necessities for everyone.

In the land of equality, what is wrong with EVERYONE kicking in, say 20 cents on the dollar to support their goverment. I bet revenues would stay the same.

Hi Bobbi

You are correct. Sort of

The government is responsible for the minimum wage, subsidized part of the high school, (but the rest was private), paves the roads and subsidized the bus.

Like I said, I support paying my fair share of taxes, as there are many government programs that are critical for the progress of society, like universal health care, public infrastructure, public education, etc.

However, the government (nor society) was NOT responsible for my hard work that increased my net value..I could have sat my my fat ass just as well as they have.

Just because I made sacrifices and spent my time improving my lot, not watching American Idol and didn't sink into debt and reality TV, why should I now be everyone else's sugar daddy?

I'll help anyone pay for their school though my fair share (30%) of taxes, I'll help pay for their roads and bridges and busses, and heathcare.....

...I dont believe I should have to ALSO subsidize their sitting in a home they cant afford to own, pumping out brats they can't afford to feed and watching their big screen TV they bought on credit and defaulted on the payment.

Why should I pay a higher percentage of taxes than them just because I chose to work harder?

canuckchuck- yep, here in MN we will likely soon support 3 new stadiums: Vikings gotta have one too! I am a recovering sports-aholic myself, but this is truly nuts. 100% estate tax is a might too high. I'd say 50% or so just like the top income tax. peoplefirst- adjust energy tax rates and/or fees on inefficient energy devices to achieve the desireable total tax amount. pavroviandog- I'm sure some type of consumption tax could work well. It just seems a bit more complicated to me--i.e. setting the proper tax on individual items to achieve the desireable effects.

Even at 91%, one would still have 270,000 dollars to spend if they were making 3 million. I do not know about any of you, but I could only dream of being oppressed like that.

The seventy percent tax bracket needs to be returned, and shareholders need to be able to have a say in their CEO's salary. Even the wealthy think that these guys make entirely too much, and with this control their pay would probably be cut in half at a minimum.

I really enjoyed the comment on how nobody asks "How rich is too rich?" Very true, and this minimum wage increase, just to repeat myself from the moment it passed, is ridiculously insufficient.

Topainca - You must be a bottom-feeder, because if you only own ONE ferrari, well, talk to me when you get your tenth. You poor unfortunate soul.

Some people posting here have said that high rates of taxation on income constitute theft. There are a couple of things that could be said about this. First of all, I suspect that some people do not know what "marginal rates" mean in income tax. If you pay (for example) 90% on an income of 4 million dollars, that does not mean that you must pay 3,600,000.00 to the government in taxes. It means that every dollar you earn OVER 3 million dollars is taxed at 90%. Those who see their incomes grow from 3 million to 4 million dollars will still have a lot more money than if they were "only" earning 3 million dollars - $100,000.00 more, to be precise. That's almost double what I earn in a year. And remember that the first 3 million dollars was taxed at a progressively (regressively?) lower rate all the way down to the first 10,000 or so, which is not taxed at all. So let's assume a modest return to the sharply progressive income tax that we had in both Canada and the USA in the 1950s (and no, Canuckchuck, we were not ruled by Communist dictators at the time). I don't have the exact historical numbers in front of me, so I'll create a simple model of a progressive income tax, with the first 10,000 untaxed and ten taxation brackets leading to 90% at 4 million dollars. I came up with the percentages randomly just to illustrate the principle. Here it is:

1) 0 - 10,000 – 0%
2) 10,000 – 20,000 – 5%
3) 20,001 – 40,000 – 10%
4) 40,001 – 60,000 – 25%
5) 60,001 – 100,000 – 52%
6) 100,001 – 300,000 – 55%
7) 300,001 – 1,000,000 – 60%
8) 1,000,001 – 2,000,000 – 70%
9) 2,000,001 – 3,000,000 – 80%
10) 3,000,001 – 4,000,000 – 90%

So let's say your income is 4 million and you're getting taxed at the top rate.

First bracket: 10,000
Second bracket – 10,000 minus 5%: total: 9,500 (cumulative total: 19,500)
Third bracket – 20,000 minus 10%: total: 18,000 (cumulative total: 37,500)
Fourth bracket – 20,000 minus 25%: total: 15,000 (cumulative total: 53,500)
Fifth bracket – 40,000 minus 52%: total: 19,200 (cumulative total: 72,700)
Sixth bracket – 100,000 minus 55%: total: 45,000 (cumulative total: 117,700)
Seventh bracket – 700,000 minus 60%: total: 280,000 (cumulative total: 397,700)
Eighth bracket – 1,000,000 minus 70%: total: 300,000 (cumulative total: 697,700)
Ninth bracket – 1,000,000 minus 80%: total: 200,000 (cumulative total: 897,700)
Tenth bracket – 1,000,000 minus 90%: total: 100,000 (cumulative total: 997,700)

So a person earning 4 million dollars a year would end up with a net income (after taxes) of 997,700. More than enough to live on, even if you have a couple of kids. And those earning less would pay less, as you can see.

Secondly, the problem with saying that high rates of taxation on incomes constitute "theft" is that in order to be morally and logically consistent, you must say that low rates of income taxation constitute theft as well. If I take somebody's wallet at gunpoint, I am just as much a thief if that wallet has $10 in it as I am if it has $1,000 in it. And if it is "theft" to take a 90% marginal rate (75.6% of the total income), from an income of 4 million dollars, which leaves the person with $997,700, then why is it morally acceptable to take a 25% marginal rate off an income of $60,000 (11% of the total income), which leaves them with only 53,500? If you believe that the government does not have the moral right to take money from citizens, then income tax of any kind is unacceptable. Maybe consumption tax and import duties, but definitely not income tax.

Rmouse: you speak sarcastically about how the government can spend money more wisely than individual citizens. But there are two points you are disregarding: firstly, if the government is democratic, then it will spend our tax money on us, not on wars in Asia. Have you completely given up on democracy? (and bear in mind: if we had progressive taxation, we could finance election campaigns publicly, which would produce much more democratic governments, because candidates would not be beholden to the oligarchs who pay for their campaigns) And moreover: democracy or no democracy, there are certain things only the government spending can procure. Only the government can provide sewer systems, drinking water, universal health care, public education and public transportation. To make that observation is not to belittle the wisdom of individual citizens. What kind of society do you want – one where we're all living in cabins in the woods, hunting and fishing and providing our own sanitation and transportation systems and home-schooling our kids and pulling out our rotten teeth with pliers and performing caesarean sections on our wives with jackknives? Even if that is what you want – and I can't deny the idea has some appeal – it is impossible for most of us to live that way.

In solidarity,

Mark Marshall
Toronto

pavrovian...I would suggest that those wanting a yacht would buy it from another country and import it ( or leave it there and fly to it on weekends) rather than pay a ridiculous 90% tax.

What if I bought my Ferarri as a collection of $19 parts, then paid my illegal immigrant mechanic to put it together?

I think your idea would only result in the loss of any maufacturing jobs that are left.

How about an importation tax instead, like most countries have? It encourages local manufacturing, and creates jobs, instead of enouraging anyone with money to flee the country?

canuckchuck,

I have a little problem with your assertion that "the government never did anything" for you.

Just reading your little bio, I find:

-you worked a minimum wage job. Who do you think guaranteed a wage floor for you?

-you took the bus to work. What was it, a private bus company?

-you went to a technical college. Again, I'm sure it was a private college, receiving no federal, state, or local tax dollars to continue in operation.

-you took out a mortgage to buy your home. And I'm sure you refused to take advantage of any tax writeoffs for your mortgage payments, just so no one could accuse you of not pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

-you're currently driving a "decent car." I suppose you only take private toll roads.

People, we can argue till the cows come home about what the marginal tax rate should be. Yeah, it should be progressive, and yeah, it should be higher, but as long as our friends and neighbors continue to buy the Republican BS that government can't be trusted with our tax dollars, we're going to have to figure out how to build and maintain our own roads, police and fire departments, disaster response, schools, and much more. You think our healthcare system works great--when even people WITH INSURANCE can't be sure that their healthcare will be covered? Wanna see the same model applied to every other part of the infrastructure that you currently take for granted? Keep voting for "No new taxes" Republicans.

A good point was made about Minnesota, but the government is funding not one, but two new stadiums. I guess baseball and football can't share a stadium????

"The two stadiums combined are expected to cost more than $1 billion, and the state and local governments are expected to meet two-thirds of that commitment"

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/03/30_khoom_stadium/

How many bridge upgrades would that have paid for?

This is reminicent of many of the "tax anyone who makes more than me" crowd.

They would have more money if the didn't spend all of it on 50" flat screen TV's, brand new luxury cars, and monster houses..all on credit, and expect the "rich" (i.e. those that have worked harder and longer and smarter)to provide for them when they cant make the payments.

You want more money?

Turn off the big screen TV, put down the pork rinds, get off your fat asses, crack a book and get yourself an education and a higher paying job.

Who decides who gets taxed and for what? Do you? I don't. Politicians get lots of money from elites to decide that. Mike Gravel figured that out long ago.

I support a 100% inheritence tax, as I have no kids, and plan to spend every nickel before I die.

Anything I can't manage to spend will be used to have lips surgically attached to my butt, and be buried upside down in a shallow grave so the world has no problem kissing my dead ass.

What ever happened to the great "social-democratic compromise" of the 1930s? What happened to Republicans - thinking LaGuardia - who had the balls and the rational capability to utilize public expenditure in the face of huge opposition, simply because it was the most efficient method of re-building the economy?

This country is run by a bunch of greedy baboons, and if we don't take it back in damn big way, we may never recover. The 35W collapse is just another sign of the great unraveling of a system that was flawed from the beginning. Sooner or later, it will ALL come crashing down around our feet. The question is, who will be there to rebuild it?

I will be standing with Thom, that's for sure, dig?

Paul you already read the following response I posted recently.
But Greg R---I'm reposting it and just throwing the idea at you:

I would like to suggest a graduated consumption tax. For example:
- food (staples--not Beluga caviar!) would be exempt
- health-related items---also exempt
- gasoline - the first $15 purchase exempt (i.e. encouraging energy conservation by rewarding people who drive cars with a higher MPG). If you drive a hummer or gas-guzzling SUV add a 5%tax (i.e. your gas purchase is going to exceed the $15/tax exempt
amount).
- autos---no tax on energy-saving cars
- everything else can be taxed as for example:
- items costing less than $20--no tax
- items costing between $20-$50---1%
- items costing between $50-$100----1.5%
- items costing " $100-$200---2%
(you catch the drift....)
- the $1000 dress....30%
- the $2000 leather bag ---35%
- the $300 bottle of wine ---10%
- a $10,000 watch....50% tax
- the ferrari, the yacht----90%tax (if you can afford the ferrari, you can surely afford the tax!)

Just wanted to show that we don't have to throw away the proverbial baby with the bathwater. A progressive consumption tax that takes into consideration the true costs
of lower and middle class incomes is worth taking a look at. In tandem, the income tax should be drastically reduced on families with incomes of $75,000 or less.

I would like to recommend a book called "PLan B" by Lester Brown. One chapter deals with new models of taxation, among other business matters toward an earth-friendly economy.

So reassuring to hear all those intelligent, innnovative thinkers on this blog. It just shows that Americans are very resourceful and that we can set this country on the great and moral ground it always aspires to. This is at the root of what makes this country so great: it can REINVENT itself as it often has under the stewardship of the truly great presidents. The disintegration of our beloved USA is no accident---but rather the result of an intentional design by a few spoiled, ignorant, shallow, greedy, power-obsessed and very insecure leaders.

I'm also working on some cutting edge ideas on education---and how to reinvent IT. I'll publish it in a few months.

Reagan was actually a lot worse than this article suggests, but I suspect Mr. Hartmann knows this. What's a little death squad among friends?

For America, it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better. As long as Americans can sit back and ogle their flat-screen televisions and enjoy easy access to every vice known they will not turn away from the greed that is quite literally ruining the world.

It's too easy for Americans to tune-out when there are still apples in the orchard of the Land of Plenty. It matters not one bit that the apples are small, plastic and made in China. All that matter's is that the life being ruined is CURRENTLY not their own, (or so they believe.)

Ask not for whom the bell tolls....

May the revolution be as swift as it is peaceful.

Peace to you and yours.

of course I never did learn how to spell =)

Greg R

I doubt your tax plan would work - I think
the revenue stream would be too low (but
don't know that for sure - that's for
economists and accountants to figure out.)

But going back to the pre-Reagan tax policy
(and closing loopholes) would be a good
start. I remember (contrary to the stated
goals), taxes got MORE complicated after
the Reagan tax-simplification plan.

The places to start would be basing taxes
on multiples of the minimum wage, removing
the cap on FICA wages so the rich don't
automatically get a cut of 7.65% on their
income (which they don't even to pay to
start with on their capital investment
income), removing all the garbage loopholes
and worksheets in the current tax code,
getting rid of tax credits (just lower the
taxes on those that earn less instead), and
go back to truly progressive tax rates.

IMHO

Why give more money to the government, so they can waste more of it?

If you tax your higher income countrymen at 70-90%, they will not be your countrymen much longer..they will just take their money and the jobs they can create, and go elsewhere with it al la NAFTA.

I personally started at the very bottom fo society. I had to drop out of school and go to work for financial and family reasons. I worked as a minimum wage construction laborer for years, starting ar 15 years old, and was lucky to eventually, through hard work and long hours, get apprenticed as a carpenter. For most of my life it was a choice between paying the rent and buying groceries..I often had to work all week with no foos at home, but I always put aside money for bus fare to work.

I finsihed my high school education through correspondence, and as I increased my value to my employers, I slowly started to earn more money. I put aside a little each week for my education, and eventually had earned enough to put myself through a 2 year technical college construction program, by living in a crappy trailer for 10 years.

When I graudated from college, I got a job junior management that paid more money. I didn't go out and buy a fancy house and car, but used the money to take a part-time evening bachelors degree, still living in the crappy trailer. when I graduated THAT program, I finaly got a job that paid enough for me to buy my own modest home (with ridiculous mortgage), and a decent car.

Today, in my late 40's , I am making a nice 6 figure salary. things are looking up. I am also taking my Masters degree, part time, on my own dime again, so that I can contimue to move ahead

After all my hard work and sacrifice, should I now have to hand over 90% of my salary to the fucking goverment that never once did anything for me???

The minute that happened, I would take my self paid education, and move to another country that allowed me to keep what I worked so hard for, while contributing my fair share to the social benefit of all.

A fair and equitable tax rate for all I can live with and actually support. but theft by majority I would not stand for.

you want more money? work for it like I did.

Whats wrong with you people? Do you how much it costs to operate a private jet, to man a 400 foot yacht, to buy a Ferrari, hire someone to kiss your ass 24/7? These super rich need to cover these expenses and if takes money out of the pockets of hardworking people too bad. They should should go buy their own politicians like the super rich did.

Maybe the bigger question for many of those in the formally 70% bracket is why are they paid so much. Many of these CEO's are pulling salaries that can't be justified.

Fine article, Thom. You have put a lot of information together and have come to a lot of correct conclusions. However, rather than Reagan, I think it would be more appropriate to simply refer to that era as the first and second terms of Bush. Remember who ran the illegal wars of that era and who was making most all the decisions in the Whitehouse. Bush, Bush Bush…The Bush family the number one enemy of freedom loving, Liberty loving Americans.

Reagan was simply a puppet/puppy reading his lines.

sjc_1 August 6th, 2007 12:49 pm wrote:

"Repugs want you to think that you can trust what people do with their money."

He is refering to rich people of course. Isn't that demand-side economics? I thought the repugs were all about supply-side economics. Demand economics for the rich and the rest of should just shut up ant take what's offered? The economic power of the have-nots combined is real power, too bad we can't learn to work together. Example: if we all seriously worked hard to reduce our consumption of oil, we could really turn the tables on the oil industry. I started riding my bike to work (about 2 miles) and now go to the gas pump every three weeks instead of every week. I stop at the store on the way home and that saves a trip later. Of course my car is there when I need it, but what a difference in the gas bill. Even if everyone didn't drive their cars just one day a month, the oil companies would feel it and get scared.

Look at what the government is currently doing with your tax dollars and ponder whether it is a good idea to give them MORE money.

Do you like for the government to build roads through old growth forests to help out the logging industry?

Do you like to help energy companies conduct "research" into "alternate fuels" by spraying pine-tar or diesel onto coal and collecting millions from the government.

Have you seen how many billions are wasted under the guise of Homeland Security?

We need more oversight, media reform definitely, an end to earmarked legislation, etc. but we don't need to give more money to the government. What a warped lesson to take from the Minnesota Bridge collapse. Remember that Minnesota has plenty of money, it just got spent on a new stadium and who knows what else.

Income taxes should be paid by those making more than say $50,000 or $100,000. Over this amount pay 1% tax. Every $50,000 more the rate goes up another 1%. If my math is right, somewhere around 2.5 million, the top rate of about 50%is reached. Couple this with much higher energy taxes to reduce global warming and our energy addiction and we have a much saner tax system. We could alternatively have moderately increased energy taxes coupled with high fees on inefficient appliances and vehicles.

I agree with the author's premise. We need to bring back taxes to the way they were before Reagan lowered them. 70% tax rates were the norm then and with this money, the Government could spend it wisely. Far far more wisely than any citizen could, that is for sure.

The greed-addicted "elite" money hoarders respond:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good luck with that. Why do you think we're filling up HRC and BA campaign coffers to the brim? To pay MORE taxes?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

It states explicitly on our currency that each cent, dollar, etc is the property of the united states government. It is the responsibility of that government to see that its currency and all natural resources, rights, and comforts are distributed equally among it's people.

Massive wealth disparity, disproportionately funded military, ascendancy of religious influence, greater reliance on indentured labor, higher taxes on labor than on inheritance...

...oh how we love the smell of our banana republic on a Monday morning.

Not only do workers get low pay and have to pay more for goods and service, they pay most of the taxes as well. Who says slavery is dead?

Corporations used to pay 60% of the national budget decades ago, but now pay less than 7%. We were told that was for "competitiveness", which I do not even think is a real word.

What that meant was help us in our downsizing, outsourcing, leveraged buyout race to the bottom with YOUR hard work and taxes, while we fill our Swiss bank accounts and sail our yachts.

We have been conned people, by one of the best B grade movie actors of the last half of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan. He used to sell soap on TV and was head of the screen actors guild before he became Governor of California. He almost ruined the public University system and set the stage for Prop 13 that did ruin the K12 school system. He could sell refrigerators to the Eskimos.

We should never forget that not only do those with wealth have the power to redirect the income streams of wealth-producing enterprises into their own pockets, so that they benefit off the labor and productivity of others, but also that those who accumulate great wealth acquire the power to bully the rest of us and corrupt our political system and our culture. And most of them use that power, frequently. The desire to limit others wealth is born not of envy (that is the propaganda of the economic elites), but of suffering the abuse and bullying by the rich.

We are headed toward an economic and societal catastrophe because the wealthy of the US have become addicted to manipulating the system to increase their share of the pie, rather than to actually creating value. And the addiction was aided and abetted by Reagan economic policies that rewarded such manipulation far greater than it rewarded innovation and increasing productivity.

Sigma: Thom Hartmann, although he didn't write it in his article, he talked about it on his radio program, doesn't believe this is about people who make a million, but it's about the SUPER rich, the people making tens or HUNDREDS of millions of dollars that problems arise. The argument, 'well the rich people will invest their money back into the system' loses relevance when they make obscene amounts of money.

The conservative revolution and ideology are destroying America. It's time we eliminate these ridiculous policies and ideas and return to government for the people.

BTW, Hartmann says, "...Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined." Why is it that our government, that creates money, needs to borrow it?

Unfortunately, most of the electorate are focussed on pop culture and are paying no attention to the US descent to becoming a thrid world nation.