Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wealthy Group Pushes to be Taxed More
Upper-income earners who actually want to pay higher taxes have launched a public campaign calling for an immediate rollback of the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush.
The group, which calls itself Wealth for the Common Good, believes that people who have taxable income of more than $235,000 a year should support restoring their top federal income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent - and now, not in 2011, when the higher rate is scheduled to return anyway.
From their Web site:
"Our country is facing the worst economic challenge since the Great Depression and an urgent need to make a long overdue investment in bringing jobs and stability back to our communities. This investment should be paid for, in part, by repealing the Bush-era tax cuts our country cannot afford.
"Those of us with taxable incomes over $235,000 benefited from the upside of the economy during the last decade and profited for eight years from a 2001 tax cut. Now is the time to give back.
"We would see a minimal tax increase - from 35 (percent) to 39.6 (percent), a rate still far lower than the one under President (Ronald) Reagan - but the increased revenue would raise an estimated $43 billion per year."
The group's founders include Chuck Collins, who inherited some of the Oscar Mayer meat fortune and who has long been involved in agitating on income-inequality issues.
He may be best known for co-writing the 2003 book "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes" with Bill Gates Sr. The book made the case for retaining the federal estate tax.
This month, Wealth for the Common Good sent its request, including a petition with more than 1,000 signatures, to President Obama and to House and Senate leaders.
- Posted in
21 Comments so far
Show AllThe problem isn't that the government doesn't have enough money. The problem is that our government spends too much money on war. Without war we would have enough money around to take care of everyone.
Hoa binh
since1492 August 10th, 2009 8:36 am,..........So true. But, the greater problem is accountability. Where is the money going? As with Tarp, they cannot account for 350B. The "bank accounting" and statements should be open to the public, possibly on a TV channel devoted to nothing but federal spending records.
I heard the amount they can not account for is in the trillions.
Remember Rumsfled shortly before 9/11 announcing the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion and an investigation would be launched.
What? Why, where's their faith in trickle-down economics?
What kind of world would we have if the folks with all the money were socially and morally responsible?
Of course, if they were socially and morally responsible then they wouldn't have all of the money.
q
Return the marginal tax rate on all income over $2 million to 70%.
That's where it was after WW2 when the greatest middle class the world has ever known was built!
By suggesting raising the rate to 39% this group is simply pre-emptively trying to prevent the tax rate from returning much higher, where it ought to be.
Cygnus,
Not just 70% over 2million marginal progressive income tax rate but also bring back the commodities and securities exchange transactions surtax of .40% as well as Glass-Steagull that were in place as well. Oh and the inherited estate tax on amounts over let's say 2.5 million which is inflation adjusted since the post war era it was in place. And since we're cleaning things up, I'll add FICA on every penny of income, no matter source or amount. That should do it after UniversalSinglePayer passes, corporate personhood is revoked and Congress tells Pentagon no more $ for undeclared wars.
As AbeWinken has commented the winds of change have wafted their way and if THEY don't pre-empt it, there won't be enough sawdust in the streets to protect the finish on the Lexus.
the idle rich are smelling the rot of our country. No longer can they avoid the dirty unwashed homeless in the streets as the go out to the theater.They fear the restless winds of the struggling masses and know exactly where these masses will head when they can no longer bear the burdens of wage slavery. Only a few actually feel the shame and guilt and speak out the rest like donald hump scream shrilly "your fired".
Hey rich people that feel guilty feel free to donate to the food banks that are empty and homeless shelters that are overflowing.
Didn't Jesus tell the rich prince to go sell everything he owned and then come back to hang out together?
Our political vote is meaningless in an environment where wealth owns Congress. Our economic vote is what counts. Stop spending and bring the beast down.
Wealth for the common good, regardless of the tax base, is an impossible dream in a country where those who control the spending priorities recognise no commonweal but their own wellbeing and avarice.
Under their guidance, foreign adventures aimed at securing so-called "U.S. interests" will always take precedence over the common good of the domestic populace. Those interests, armed with "the full faith and credit" of the United States (i.e., yours), will not only consume every penny in the pot, they'll continue creating debt far beyond any realistic ability to repay. Bankruptcy is an integral part of their strategy.
Good idea. I wonder how many members this group has. :)
Joe
Joe, that's an interesting question. 1000 signatures, and probably an unknown number of silent sympathizers. But I don't think it includes any of the ruling oligarchy. They have other priorities and no conscience. And I don't think they have any intention of giving back what they've taken since Reagan. That will be up to us.
Good list, netminnow.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
That's a pretty sweeping statement you've made about the "ruling oligarchy". It is nearly always inaccurate to speak in such generalized terms, particularly about the motives of people you don't know. Though I would not characterize myself as a member of this group, I find your remarks regarding their motives and characteristics to be, for the most part, unjustifiably deprecatory and overstated, and, moreover, the kind of statement that denigrates those who would do good simply because they come from a wealth level you perhaps don't share. A bit of a cheap shot, in my view.
Thank you and your three members.
I am not so sure that the 'paying of more taxes' would be as 'effective' as another approach might be.
These well meaning people are suggesting that they turn over money in the form of 'more' taxes; to a government that doesn't manage the money it is paid now, any better than a teenager would.
This touches on a field that is relatively new to most Americans, and for some is perplexing. That field is known as 'Social Capitalism"----my people practiced it and it was exceptionally effective--until the US Gov changed things.
In those days, your wealth was not measured by 'what or how much you had' but how much you had 'given to those who needed'. This was and is leadership by example; the only true form of leadership.
Why not take the 'money' they would 'give' and 'spread it around' in the form of 'Micro Loans', Community Development Programs, Small Business Operations that 'manufacture in the USA, providing jobs to citizens and legal aliens of the USA.
Community Health Clinics where Docs and Nurses can serve their residence requirements, and the patients pay what they can afford. In the same line, rural health care groups that 'visit', and are paid on the same scale.
'After' School Programs that offer extra curricular studies in the , humanities, arts, and other fields. So many areas need attention, there is not enough space here for the list.
Take the money and SHOW the government HOW to serve the 'people' with it instead of 'giving it over to the same people who can't properly manage what they take now in taxes. You never know: the government might just 'learn something'.
The 'right programs' 'managed properly' could 'shame' members of all of the political parties---and reveal to them that their 'importance'---is 'relative'.
In the future a persons wealth may be judged by how much they shared.
The USA needs to make some very serious social changes soon, and ones that include 'Social Capitalism' haven't been tried.
When one is searching for a solution to any problem, it is advisable to 'try' the ones that 'have not' been tried.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
That was the Potlach. It worked wonderfully well for the tribes of the Pacific Northwest.
A modern version would be the Wealth/Power Cap, a cap on personal net worth established by yearly referendum, high enough to preserve the profit motive, but low enough to prevent extreme concentration of wealth/power.
A Wealth/Power Cap would require each person by law to give away any money and assets in excess of the cap, but only to others, not to organizations or governments of any kind. The gifts would be included in the recipient's personal wealth cap determination.
All taxes would be eliminated as not being necessary. People could pool some of their allowed wealth only, to pay for infrastructure, employees, etc.
A Wealth/Power Cap will address the second largest societal problem, extreme concentration of wealth and power.
To address the first societal problem, overpopulation, the wealth cap can be made inversely proportional to the birth rate. The lower the birth rate, the higher the wealth cap gets and the more money and assets a person can possess. This gives people a money incentive to lower the birth rate.
Lowering the birth rate is much preferable to killing each other to control overpopulation and its resource depletion.
Being one of the lower income strata I have no problem with raising taxes on the wealthy. Another approach might be to adjust the income brackets for inflation. When the income tax was inaugurated early last century the bottom taxable income level was five thousand dollars. In today's dollars that comes to somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-70 thousand. Leaving the money in the hands of the bottom half of the income strata would immediately help to boost the econonmy in that this group will spend it out of sheer necessity. Relying on the charity of the wealthy seems a little ill-advised as most of them did not get their wealth by being generous.
Don Dibble
very good points, all.
native son excellent post! this is democracy in action
and it means also the the govt. cannot be given an opportunity
to squander as it goes directly into an entities hands.
ezeflyer yours was brilliant as well ,. the truth of all this
is folks helping folks and a return to a more civilized
society.. i would like to state it like this a pre ronald
reagan days where greed isn't the over riding mind set
like it currently is! thanks folks or a change we are posting
out of optimism and of how good we can all be and you know what
we can all figure to do something good in our communities
something that may in fact take mere minutes of our
time and money if we think in a community way. thanks
again for the good feelings its usually doom and gloom no
matter where we look on these sites. good night!
This is an interesting subject. It seems that the wealthy are extremely clever in avoiding taxes and so the lower income brackets are forced to shoulder the burden not only through income taxes, social security taxes, local sales taxes, exorbitant rents, and myriad other devices to shrink their already meager incomes. Clearly something needs to be done. Since I'm not an advocate of violent revolution I'd like to warn that when things get so bad that violent revolution seems the only option to many then that is what we will get, like it or not.
Many good comments here. Excellent post, NativeSon. I agree with Don Dibble that a violent revolution would cause considerable damage and not benefit the working poor. We need to find nonviolent solutions.
Gail M, you think we do not have a ruling oligarchy? Perhaps plutocracy or corporatocracy is closer to defining who rules America. Or do you think we have a real democracy, where we actually are informed by the media (single payer, anyone?) and all candidates get a fair hearing (Kucinich, anyone?) and a Congress that actually listens to constituents other than lobbyists (have you tried to talk to your congressperson? - good luck with that)? This country must have one of the most uninformed, ignorant and passive electorates on the planet. Elections are stolen and while people in other countries take to the streets, the US public doesn't even notice. Congress has sold itself to the corporations, and the public is absorbed with American Idol. A majority of Americans cannot name even one Supreme Court justice, and at least 68% of Americans don't even know how their own Representative voted on bills they want passed. You cannot have a democracy with an uninformed and detached electorate. Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois) said "Frankly, the banks own Capitol Hill". And the families who rule America own the banks. Go look up the GINI index for the US. It's reached a level beyond which other countries have revolutions. And then come back and talk to me about my deprecatory and overstated remarks. And by the way, I was honoring those who have an unfair share of wealth and want to correct that imbalance, which does not include the families who rule America.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson