|
||
I'm Sick of Hearing About the Poor, Poor Millionaires
Conservatives and corporate-owned Democrats are in a tizzy. The House is moving its version of healthcare reform forward, and it (gasp!) raises money by (double-gasp!) taxing rich folks. Not by very much, as these things go -- but you certainly wouldn't know that from hearing Republican politicians and their enablers in the news media. As far as they're concerned, Democrats are going to raise everyone's tax rates (yes, even YOURS!) until they rival Denmark's (complete with Fox News graphics, in case you missed the point). While the tactic is new, the strategy is an old one, and can be summed up as: "Who will stand up for the poor, poor millionaires and billionaires?"
You know what? I'm sick of this nonsense. I really am. Starting, first and foremost, with the term "class warfare." I keep waiting for some Democrat (Jim Webb would be a good choice, in my opinion) to stand up and say something like the following -- to either some clueless, overpaid, inside-the-Beltway media type, or some clueless, bought-and-paid-for Republican officeholder:
"I'm sorry, did you just say 'class warfare'? Your use of this term is highly offensive to me. In case you have forgotten, we are at war. We are currently waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vice president's son is currently serving in a war zone, as are thousands of other brave American men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. And you have the gall to sit there and call a discussion of marginal tax rates 'warfare'? Please show me the video highlights of this war, if you would. Where are the clips of armed guerrillas laying siege to the Hamptons? Where are the battlelines where people are dying in the hills of Bel Air? Where are the armed insurrectionists? How many casualties has this class warfare cost? Where are the pitchforks and torches and mobs in the streets? If you don't have video of such battles raging right now to show me, then I would insist you not refer to a debate in Congress over making the ultra-wealthy pay the same tax rate they did under Bill Clinton -- a tax rate much lower than they paid under Ronald Reagan, I might add -- as any type of 'warfare,' because it insults me and it insults the men and women who are putting their lives on the line on foreign soil right this very minute to preserve your ability to say such repugnant things."
As I said, Senator Jim Webb would be my first choice for delivering this message, for obvious reasons. Sometimes, as Robert A. Heinlein said, you have to step on people's toes until they apologize.
A few facts are in order here. What is causing apoplexy in Republicans is a plan to raise the income tax rate for people making over $280,000 a year by one to five percentage points. Right now, the wealthiest of the wealthy in America pay 35 percent income tax. What is being proposed is raising this back to where it was before Bush lowered it -- to a high point of 39.6 percent. Not, as Republicans will tell you, "almost as high as Denmark's." Denmark's highest income tax rate is 60 percent. Plus (a fact they conveniently ignore), in Denmark you pay a "Value Added Tax" (or national sales tax) of 25 percent on everything you buy. So don't worry, nobody in America is going to be paying anything like what the Danish pay.
Nancy Pelosi has even already walked these numbers back. She's now proposing taxing only single people who make more than $500,000 and couples who make more than one million dollars every year. In other words, Joe The Plumber should relax, because his taxes aren't going up a dime. He would be part of the ninety-nine-percent-plus of the American workforce who would not have their taxes changed one tiny little bit under this plan.
This stuff seems obvious to me, but then I turn on the television, and listen to "journalists" who have apparently beamed in from Mars. Or Pluto, since they seem to be speaking Plutocrat as their first language. Ahem. Seriously, when is some Democrat (Al Franken springs to mind for this one) going to ask one of these blow-dried talking heads "Excuse me, but in the interests of full disclosure, you really should tell the viewers how much money you make per year. You seem to be championing low taxes for the ultra-wealthy, but I detect more than a hint of protecting your own self-interest in this discussion." I'd pay good money, so to speak, to hear someone (anyone!) say that to one of these "journalists" on television. It would put things in some sorely needed perspective. "Did you make more than a million bucks last year? How many millions did you make? Why didn't you share that with your viewers at the beginning of your comments?"
But perhaps that's a tad too confrontative, eh? OK, how about laying it on the line in a calm and rational manner, then. Democrats have been terrified -- absolutely terrified -- to raise any taxes at any time, because the Republicans have used it so effectively as an iron club, for so many years now. But healthcare reform has to be paid for somehow. Now that the House has thrown down the gauntlet, we need to hear a few Democrats defending this action, instead of eternally shying away from it. Democrats, so far, have seemed to think that if they don't talk about it, nobody will notice that they're raising taxes on the rich. This is wrong -- Republicans have been waiting to pounce on this particular issue ever since Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House, and they are now gleefully doing so. The only way this is going advance politically is if a few Democrats defend the policy to the public, and calm everyone down a bit. Here's an example of what I'm suggesting:
"President Obama promised during his campaign not to raise taxes on people making less than a quarter of a million dollars per year. We are going to help him keep that promise. Others have been suggesting that we tax everyone's health care benefits to pay for health care reform. We're not going to do that, because it would affect union members and other hardworking Americans -- lots of policemen and firemen, and others who make up the backbone of the middle class in America. We think they've been taxed enough. We think that the millionaires and billionaires who have made out like bandits under Republican tax cuts for the past eight years can afford to go back to paying what they paid under Bill Clinton. We want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the extremely wealthy, because we think it is more important to provide access to healthcare to all Americans than it is to help people like John McCain buy another house or airplane. Everyone is having to sacrifice in this economy. Millions have already sacrificed by losing their jobs. Millions have lost their health care. Millions of sick people are sacrificing their health, because they cannot pay for treatment. Millions more have had to take pay cuts, and are relieved just to still have a job. The American people have sacrificed, and continue to make tough decisions daily -- because some can't afford both medicine and food. And we simply do not think that asking millionaires to pay an extra few percent of their million-dollar incomes is asking too great a sacrifice from them. We think it's about time they sacrificed a little bit, for the good of the country, and gave back the Bush tax cuts."
Until and unless Democrats start saying things like this, this tax increase is simply not going to happen. Democrats have to get over their knee-jerk reaction to being labeled "tax and spenders" by their opposition. Democrats have to stop scurrying away from the issue like cockroaches when the light hits them, and get out there and defend it. If higher taxes for millionaires are the way to pay for healthcare reform, then let everyone know it, and know why.
The poor, poor millionaires already have plenty of people beating their chests and rending their garments in public. Republicans and mainstream media "journalists" are already doing a dandy job of this. Democrats have to stand up and say, in response, "I'm for the little guy. I don't want to tax the average worker any more than they already are taxed, so I do not support taxing the middle class' healthcare benefits. Instead, I think the ultra-wealthy can pay a few percent more each year to fix the healthcare system in America. I don't think that's too much to ask of them, and I will fight any attempt to move this tax burden away from the wealthy down to the little guys. That may have worked in the past, but it's not going to work this time!"
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Insurance companies are, essentially, legalized theft. They know it, and most of us know it. Denial of coverage, refusal to pay claims, delaying reimbursements as long as possible, major rate increases due to using coverage that you have already paid for, cancellation of coverage for the crime of actually using it, maddening and confusing policies and procedures that cause consumers to make mistakes that cost those consumers money, etc. THIS is what we often get for our monthly premiums, co-payments and deductible payments. The government can and should step in,...yesterday! The vast majority of these companies are, at base, thieves who prey on the sick and take advantage of the well, until they too become sick. Then, its a crap shoot. Adn, of course, all corporate entities are run by people. They can't hide behind a "corporate identity". These people, the ones who decide how to run their respective insurance companies (the "deciders") are keenly aware of where their profit comes from and how it is maximized. Maximization of profit is KING to any corporation, not the health and well-being of its subscribers, as our current system so keenly points out. It is high-time the US government intervenes and stands up for the People. Got to give President Obama credit here. He promised he would do his best to cover all Americans and make medical care a basic human right. In the greatest country God has ever made, how could we accept anything less?
The rich and elite are so "secure," humming their happy "everything's going my way" song, until the People reach their limits then it's BAM! What happened? And of course, the People often "overreact" first, you know, by eating the wealthy.
Anyone getting hungry?
This is just an FYI for everyone here...
For technical reasons, Chris is not able to post and answer comments here so you might want to visit his own site and join in the conversation over there:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/
That's all fine and dandy. However, you are working under the assumption that this new Health Care plan will be paid for merely by raising taxes on the "ultra-wealthy". Common sense (and mathematics) dictates that this is not the case. Eventually, the middle class will have their taxes raised as well in order to pay for Health Care.
Not necessarily. The egregious inefficiencies in our private, for-profit system suggest that the increment may be nil once the system stabilizes. We spend twice per capita versus European countries and have no measurably superior outcomes. The overhead cost of Medicare is under 5 percent, a 95% "loss ratio." Private insurance has a 75% loss ratio, squandering 25% of premium dollars in marketing, CEO perks, and a maddening system of barriers to providing/paying for service. That's right; the private insurance bureaucracy rations care. It also cherry-picks the healthy and excludes the sick, defeating the logic of insurance.
An enclosed system can implement hard choices such as how much of GDP we want to spend. Until we have an equitable system that covers everyone that question is premature. Having achieved universal access it becomes the most important question. Rather than incentivizing insurance executives to abuse sick people we need a very serious conversation about how far we're willing to go towards "doing everything." Our current non-system is clumsy at setting limits. The uninsured get too many limits. For the rest it's very haphazard. In the end we can decide on a reasonable basic package to which everyone is entitled. Beyond that you gotta pay out of your own pocket.
Despite its financing challenges Medicare (universal care for the elderly) has been a popular success. How can we remain blind to this fact and not extend the same benefit to all citizens?
Hmm, you will be taxed more. So what is the current percentage cost of privatised for profit insurance (plus no pre-existing conditions, with thousands of dollars in deductible, plus copayments, plus coinsurance percentages) of the typical salary per annum. You pay more tax but you don't have to pay for private partial coverage health insurance and for by far the majority of people that cost will be far less than private insurance and provide full coverage, oh yeah and absolutely no hint of pre-existing conditions. Private "Out-of-Pocket Maximum" $10,000 per annum, your call that health insurance, you guys are utterly insane (and that's for individuals wont even cover a family).
We need to hear more things like this. I am fed up with hearing that we don't have the money to take care of our problems. It's ridiculous. If you think the middle east has most of the world's oil, then look around, because America has virtually ALL of the world's money.
We have got to start undoing the redistribution of wealth that began under Reagan. The vast inequality of wealth in the US is not good for America, it's not good for democracy, and it's not even good for capitalism.
Farmers don't pile up fertilizer in the middle of a field with the hope that it will "trickle down" to all of the plants. Money is far more stimulative when it is spread evenly throughout the populace.
Capitalism and democracy make great partners, but unrestrained capitalism will ruin this country unless we do something to stop it.
You are so right, GregO. After 30 years of reduction in median family incomes, we are seeing the results. It seems that Capitalism is a bit like the Monopoly game: once it gets to a certain point, the richest player cannot lose, and the game ends. Capitalism can survive ONLY with a prosperous and affluent middle class. And the policies of Milton Friedman and his ultra-right-wing acolytes to squeeze the middle classes and further enrich the top 1% have only caused the collapse of the consumer economy and the over-leverage of the working people. So now we are in a position where the "consumer of last resort" HAS to be the government, because there is no one else! This is critical in a capitlalist economy, where consumer spending accounts for 72% of GDP. And it is one of the paradoxes of capitalism. The urge for profit and riches is essential for a vibrant capitalist economy, but, left unchecked, it destroys itself in the process, and leads to inevitable government intervention.
Progressives need to regain the public debate on this very point. For it is progressive policies, paradoxically, that will save the capitalist market driven system, and not right-wing laissez-faire policies.
Let's not forget the wealthy have accountants who make sure they don't pay taxes. Everything is a write-off anyway. Wealthy whiners have no argument, they just hire another accountant.
I AM THE NEW AMERICAN who is sick of carrying the tax burden. Very few American Corporations pay a dime in taxes. A change in the tax codes will bring Healthcare to all Americans. We have to stand up.
Mr. Weigant, I do remember a commentator on MSNBC asking a Republican if there was ANY reason, issue, cause that would justify raising taxes. I'm not sure if this Republican signed Grover Norquist's No New Taxes Pledge, but he would not answer.
I think the way to humiliate and shame Republicans on the issue of raising taxes is to remind them we went to war in two countries and CUT taxes, with many on the right telling people to go shopping. While our troops had to scour in Baghdad junkyards to uparmor their vehicles, we were told to go shopping.
I think when the Republican says "It's your money," tell them "it's our troops."
Chris
I have had all I can stand of taxes. Being a small business owner, I pay 15% social security tax. I pay 35% income tax. I pay 4% income tax to my state and a 1% income tax to my city. I pay property taxes on my house and my cars. I pay tax on my cell phone, cable and internet bill. I pay 7.5% sales tax on everything I buy. I pay 7.5% FICA tax for my employee. I pay taxes to the city for my business license.
When one robs from Peter to pay Paul, one can always count on the support of Paul.
Who is looking out for me, Peter?
Are you saying that you make more than $250,000 per year?
It's a whole different world for business owners. What we make depends on what column we put things in. You would have to ask my accountant.
I know this, my month starts with a really big check to the IRS each month.
Close your business and stop whining about having to pay the cost of doing business!
That sounds like a wonderful idea. Then my wife, my employee and me can suck at the government teat! That would be wonderful for the economy!
My landlord would suffer as well, because he would have more vacant office space. My suppliers would suffer, as they would have one fewer customer.
The only one who wouldn't suffer is the congressmen and women who passed all the taxes.
Would you be one of the ones paying the higher income tax rate? Sounds like you wouldn't. So all your complaining is for naught.
I'm complaining about what I am already paying! Enough!
Congress can learn to budget like the rest of us. It isn't their money. It's mine.
If you weren't so occupied with your peter (analogy), you'd realize the help this would be to a small business owner...if you have employees.
Also, be aware (as so many writers don't seem to be) that taxes are only for those making money...and that threshold is 250k for individuals...in one scenario and 1M for another scenario specific to health care.
If you hate America so much, you should leave.
Isn't that what you guys have told us for the last 8 years?
I don't hate America. You don't even know me, that is an asinine implication.
Our government, on all levels, taxes too much already. That is my point.
Here is another way to pay for it: get rid of the earned income tax credit. It is nothing but welfare anyway. Buy us all health insurance if you want, but stop redistributing my income.
I would like for congress to redistribute their own!
Let me check my records. Look at that. I pay taxes... on almost everything I take in or spend too.
I have a good salary, exceptional benefits including health/vision/dental, and I am more than ready to help support a universal healthcare plan. Go ahead and tax me. It will only come out of my pocket in other ways. Restore the tax rates to the rich 1% to what they were before Bush. Even then they had already been slashed to a radically low rate during Reagan's term... which is right about the time our national debt tripled.
We are one nation.
Here is a solution Just have all the Librals pay for our health care, You people are bitching about everyone paying their share well step up to the plate and ask you congresssmen and Senatoras to only raise the taxes of Demacrats if you want universal health care for everyone YOU PAY FOR IT!!!
What we need to see more of:
Our national debt was moderately sized and steady up until Reagan was inaugerated. Under Reagan and Bush 41 our debt more than tripled and the momentum of our massive deficit was still pushing our debt skyward when Clinton took office.
When Clinton took office the momentum of the deficit was still pushing our debt upwards. During the middle of his two terms he actually managed to balance the budget and our debt had finally plateued. Our debt stopped growing under Clinton. Not only that he left office with a budget surplus, which meant that we were paying off our already $6 Trillion debt.
This is when the GOP starting complaining we had a budget surplus. They tried to make it look like the dems were hoarding money. In fact, the dems were paying off their bloated debt.
In 2000, GWB took office and within the first year our debt skyrocketed upwards at an extreme and unprecedented rate. We had a budget surplus after all (and a $6 Trillion debt).
George W Bush left office with a national debt well over $10 Trillion.
From Reagan to GW Bush our debt went from $2 Trillion to $10 Trillion. The only plateau and balanced budget during that 28 year period was while the only democrat was president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
"When Clinton took office the momentum of the deficit was still pushing our debt upwards. During the middle of his two terms he actually managed to balance the budget and our debt had finally plateued. Our debt stopped growing under Clinton. Not only that he left office with a budget surplus, which meant that we were paying off our already $6 Trillion debt."
To give full credit to Mr. Clinton would be a misrepresentation of what happened. In 1994, ideologically conservative republicans swept control of both houses of congress. The years that followed brought about the tech bubble that created great wealth and drove tax revenue higher than anyone expected.
sdskelton, you overlook the fact that Clinton and the DEM Congress passed a tax increase in 1994 without a single Republican vote. That is what started reducing the debt as well as Greenspan keeping his promise to candidate Clinton that he would lower interest rates in exchange for Clinton abandoning his campaign promise for a middle class tax cut.
I'm not sure what Republican take over of all Congress has to do with defecit reduction or tech bubble.
Also, from that wiki link (it seems you have to copy/paste the URL) you can see that it took a full 4 years to even start to undo the damage that was done during Reagan and Bush 41's terms.
Four years.
The stimulus package was signed only five months ago... 1/12 as much time.
The only TV journalist I've heard admit that he was rich, was Keith Oberman.
And even better is he's ready and glad to pay his share.
this is why everyone must pay careful attention to what is in HR 32000/Senate HLEP version(check my profile for links to them)
I can see stuff being stripped out that benefits everyone to help a few...read the bills
HR 3200/Senate HELP
your links don't work
I can't watch the news anymore. I can't read from "journalists" anymore. I can't care less about the constant babbling of the paid corporate shills trying to tell me that I'm opposed to better healthcare. The closer the country gets to healthcare reform, the louder and more obnoxious and more insidious the lies from the mainstream media get.
When will people realize that the "News" is not on their side? "Journalists" are paid by the rich to lie for them. These so called reports and polls of the public losing interest in NHC are a joke.
According to the CORPORATE owned MSM the PUBLIC does not support a PUBLIC healthcare option that would help the PUBLIC and hurt CORPORATIONS greedy profiteering.
yep...i can see that getting taken out...with the mandate staying IN...industry wants that---check my profile for links to HR3200 and Senate HELP version
So true. But I do think there's a time to raise taxes on the rich and this is not it. There a plan that raises money for the public option, 140 billion dollars, without raising taxes. It won't add to the deficit and is affordable for anyone, including small business. Check out The 5 Dollar Revolution.com, sign the petition and call the president' s comment line. We can get health care reform with the right plan.
great post!!! if only dems would follow your advice!
Class warfare is very real. The wealthy ruling class has been relentlessly waging war against the jobs and wages of the working and middle classes for thirty years. Witness the result. It doesn't look like a war because nobody is fighting back. Yet.
When the fight begins in earnest you will see the trappings of insurgency and counter insurgency.
BIG MONEY always wins, so its a real uphill battle for the middle class.
I take issue with the phrase "give back the Bush tax cuts." There is nothing to "give back" because nothing was "given" in the first place. People were allowed to keep more of the money that they created through their own labor. There is a big difference between the government taking money from someone to give to someone else and the government simply not taking money from someone. As to the rest of the article, there aren't enough "millionaires" to pay for health care and eventually the threshold of what makes a "millionaire" will drop from $500,000. In the interest of discussion though how about a compromise. How about the next tax increase is coupled with the removal of universal tax jurisdiction. We are the only country in the world that has this and I know I would not object to the tax rates in this country as much if I actually had the ability to go somewhere else.
what planet do you live on. here the wealth and income of the rich only rarely is the same as what they created from their own labor. I have always seen employers take a giant chunk out of the value of my own labor. they are able to do that because government gives and enforces (ultimately at gun point) their passive ownership rights. if you believe what you say you should favor eliminating all government interference and all taxes. let the deserving rich protect their own ownership rights and stop relying on government aid to do that..
The planet on which people create value, not the government and as such, the money first belongs to the people, not the government. Yes, I do lean pretty heavily in favor of libertarian principles, although I think that there is a distinction between libertarian and anarchist ideas so I do not reach the conclusion you deem inescapable. I certainly think that it is possible to have a limited government that enforces the rule of law rather than anarchy, don't you? Do you really believe that government creates wealth and therefore it should belong to the government first, or do you reject the notion that creation grants ownership rights? Anyone who thinks they are being ripped off by their employer I suggest you start your own business. If you are unwilling or unable, then realize that someone did create the company that you work for and your salary reflects the fact that it wasn't you.
Sorry to tell you but the money given back in the Bush tax cuts wasn't your money. It was welfare. The money had to be borrowed to rebate it back to you. Your money was spent on something else, like maybe up armored humvees for the boys in Iraq.
This appears to be what you're saying and please correct me if I'm wrong. I enter into a contract with you to provide widgets for money, you pay me the money but I never deliver the widgets but spend the money you gave me. When we go to court and you get your money back for breach of contract that is not your money? That is welfare from the government? This money was made by the individual, taken by the government, and returned to the individual. The fiscal irresponsibility of our government did not change these facts.
Oh, so there aren't enough millionaires to pay for health care reform?
Fine--let's just eliminate the private health insurance cartel.
Every dollar the private health insurance industry consumes in unnecessary overhead, marketing, excess corporate executive remuneration, and above all, PROFIT, is a dollar taken away from actual health care Americans need. On average 20% of every dollar that goes to the cartel in premiums is sucked out of the system in administrative costs. In contrast, the administrative cost of Canada's singe payer system is only 1 cent on the dollar. Medicare's cost is 3 cents. A U.S. national single payer program would be less than 3 cents on the dollar, because there would be only one, universal, comprehensive program to administer--none of this Medicare Advantage graft scam and separate prescription drug coverage crap.
Eliminating the private health insurance cartel would save $350 billion A YEAR in administrative costs--more than enough to insure the uninsured. And a single payer program could negotiate reasonable drug prices and stop doctors from ordering unnecessary tests and performing useless procedures, saving additional tens of billions.
So come on, millionaires! You want to avoid a tax hike? Come out in support of single payer!
You do have the ability to go somewhere else. Please leave and go to a country where they find a magical way to pay for public services, the largest military in the word, the most expensive health care system, and everything else we enjoy here in America -- WITHOUT higher taxes on the wealthiest 1%. When you find that mythical place, send a message back for the rest of us, okay?
I was arguing for the removal of a world wide tax jurisdiction we impose upon our citizens. We are the only country that imposes this upon its populace and you would be very hard pressed to say that it is the reason why our country is great. People probably wouldn't complain about taxes so much if they had the ability to actually move (like they already do to avoid onerous state taxes). Do you oppose this idea? Why?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
