We Have Plenty Of Money -- The Rich Are Killing Us

This is one of those moments when I feel like I live in la-la land. It's possible that I am insane, stark-raving mad and delusional. Either that or there is a staggering moral obscenity underway in our country. We have plenty of money to fund what needs to be done -- but our political leaders, on both sides of the aisle, seem unwilling to go where the money is: the rich. I know where Republicans stand on this issue. But, where in the hell is the Democratic Party?

I've written this memo to labor leaders and other allies, which I invite you to read -- and if you think it's worth circulating, please do so. Rewrite it if you think you've got a better way of laying out this case: we need significantly higher taxes on the rich NOW. We can raise significant amounts of money from the top one percent to help the people of the country. And, yet, we aren't talking about this. Not really.

It is wrong to focus on what seems like a big-ticket number for a short-term stimulus. We should not exhaust the political capital that seems to be floating around the country to finally reverse years of governing by people who are incompetent and mean-spirited. People are pissed. They know they have been robbed. But, we will lose the long-term battle to reinstill in this country a sense of fairness if we focus attention on short-term action. We have to focus the people on this: the rich should start shouldering a fairer share of the dues we pay to live in a functioning democracy.

While our country is disintegrating, the rich are hiding. They are hiding behind their lobbyists and the political leaders they helped elect. They are hiding behind a decades-long ideology that paralyzes the political system from being serious about what the rich should pay. A recent op-ed by Robert Rubin (a man who helped create the financial mess we are in) and Jared Bernstein, a progressive economist, said this:

We both agree that individual income tax rates and other taxes for those at the very top could be moved back to the rates of the Clinton era.

That is entirely absurd. That is letting the rich off the hook. The Clinton-era top rates only seem high relative to the robbery that took place before and after. It is reinforcing such a tiny frame about what the rich owe society. I understand why Rubin, a Wall Street banker, says this. But, if this is what progressives like Bernstein are arguing for, then, they should step aside and let a serious debate take place.

The rich are killing people.

Yes, that is an over-the-top statement. But, tell me, what else would you say when:

People are dying, getting sick or going backrupt -- millions of people -- because they have no health care. And, yet, the rich aren't paying their fair share to heal our society and help fund a national health care system (though, I would point out that a single-payer system would SAVE the government money).

We are killing the planet. And, yet, even our president-elect is talking about investing a relatively puny amount of money to save the earth. We could do much more--if the rich paid a fairer share.

Millions of people are living at poverty level wages: 45 million workers earn $10.21 an 
hour or less; 24.5% of all workers earn poverty level wages ($9.60 or below); 10% of the American workforce, almost 15 million people, earn $6.79 or less; and 33.3% of black workers and 39.3% of Hispanic workers earn poverty level wages. We should have full employment and the government should be the employer of last resort, guaranteeing everyone a job. We could do that--if the rich paid a fairer share.

States are reeling from big deficits. In my state, New York, we have a "liberal" governor who talks about cutting education and health care. But, if we went back to a more progressive tax system, we could have billions more--and it would only need to come from the richest one percent. Children may not get decent education, teachers may not get a decent salary and people may get sicker and die in New York simply because the rich are not paying their fair share.

We must win this fight first. If we don't win this fight, all the individual programs and demands we make will be gobbled up and disappear, victims of a cowardly political class and a self-centered elite who seem only to care about how much more money they can grab.

We need leaders to stand up and say: Enough. Enough of the robbery that has been blessed for so many years by the political system. We cannot afford that anymore.

Comments

[research]

Hallelujah! Shout it from the roof tops!

To the GOP:

Anything that helps society is Socialism, Communist totalitarian Socialism like the USSR.

Roads, police, education.­...

The GOP says:

Privatize and Deregulate!

The rich do it every time , if we let them, the suck all the money out the system and crash the whole economy.

Industrialization and capitalism have built in exponential imbalances that, without progressive, redistributive , taxes makes the rich richer and poor poorer, faster and faster. It happened before the Depression the same way. Taxes on top income got lowered to 25% in 1925 leading to market bubbles and crashes. think of it this way: 10 times the average income has WAY MORE THAN TEN TIMES THE POWER TO MAKE MORE MONEY.

Please read up on the Great Depression with this time line:
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html

Deregulation and Low taxes CAUSED the bubbles then the crash.

We thrived with lot of regulations and a 74-92% top income tax rate from 1934 to 1962.

Government Public Works deficit spending is what ended the Depression.

I would not raise Capitol Gains or corporate tax very much. Nor should we impose large tariffs.

Read about:

"Social Democracy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Capitalistic, market oriented, socially responsible, Social safety net, Democracy.

Look to the Swedes and their "middle Way"

[standard]

Nicely put!

[discourse jockey]

Fact is, people are ensnared in a fantasy wherein it is somehow *not* completely obscene to have more than one million dollars per annum at your private disposal. Who would ever deserve that large a proportion of the income? Are middle class families not working their a**es of just the same? What about the barely-coping single mom who has to work three jobs just to make ends meet? Is she lazy? Is it her fault that the game is rigged? Crazy, that's what it is. Nobody ever needs or deserves more than a million dollars a year. And someone who has that kind of money and doesn't let it "trickle down" (remember, that was the excuse they used to cut their taxes) is just anti-social.

And just in case you wonder why you have trouble paying for health insurance, go check out the latest after-tax profit data of some of the biggest pharmaceutical corporations. Hint: They range in the billions. That's *after-tax profit*, for heaven's sake.

[RightWingMarine]

Why shouldn't someone be entitled to an income of greater than $1million? If under their leadership the company increases it profits by billions that leader shouldn't be entitled to millions? What about people who start their own business. Should Michael Dell not be entitled to more than $1 million when he started his company in his dorm room and grew it to it's vast size today?

Being highly paid isn't about working harder it's about working smarter. No the same opportunities are not available to everyone. Some people are born smarter than others, some are born into areas that will give them a unique insight into a problem that they can solve which makes them and society better off.

Why would anyone continue to work past earning $1million? Would society be better off if a heart surgeon stopped work once he earned the limit?

You want to see medical costs go down? Institute a loser pays judical system where the loser of the case pays all attorneys fees and court costsfor both sides. This would end the frivoulus lawsuits that plague our judical system.

[RightWingMarine]

so much jealousy of the rich.

The government should ensure 100% employment? Wasn't there a economic plan that used that not too long ago? Whatever happened to that country?

Dramatically raise income tax on the rich? Why would they keep working? If you had the ability to retire today or continue working but a majority of what you earned would be taken from you under the threat of force (try not paying your taxes and see what happens) how long would you keep working?

Are we talking about seizing money the rich have already earned and have invested or saved? Wouldn't that be more simply described as stealing?

How much is a fair share? Since a large percentage of Americans pay no income tax at all isn't that also an unfair share?

If we could eliminate poverty by increasing the amount people are paid why not set the min wage at $100/hr? Then we could all be rich!

[jhNY]

The rich have 'earned' what they have in part because they have rejiggered law to work to their benefit and then pulled all the cash they could through the loop-holes. The rich have been under-taxed because they have bankrolled the politicians who would have to pass fairer tax laws, but would then have to campaign minus the bankrolls. I am not envious of the rich. I am angry at the rich. Because they are destroying the democracy and the economy and keep lining up for more cash from the public trough. And nobody seems to have the power or will to oppose them, including nearly all Democrats in office.

[SOLERSO68]

No just the money that the rich have neither "earned" nor "saved" but what has been produced through lobbying, unfair and unbalanced regulatory statutes, a tax cose designed for them to cheat, and the benefits of living in the most pwerful and expensive democracy in the world. "the rich" benefit disproportionately from their citizenship and its not because they make such brilliant and succesfull business decision. sometimes they do but everything is stacked up for them. HOW ABOUT THIS LITTLE CANARD. "america has the 2nd highest corporate taxes in the world". thats true, right behind japan. America and Japan are the 1 and 2 most pwerful economies in the world and what do we americans get for our taxes? it would be interesting to not look at RATE but lets see where we stand in TAXES COLLECTED. Im all in favor of globalization, an fact, any american corporation that want to move to myanmar to hire people for 50 cent an hour well that between them and the people of Burma, but if they do, im for having them move lock stock and barrel, all the whole circus, the boat , the rolls, muffy, tiffy and biff jr. too. and they all can start enjoying them benefits of lower taxes and thier new BURMESE citizenship

[magen]

What IS a fair share for the wealthy??

[EvasDaddy]

What we need is a redistribution of conscience.

It's time for our nation to stop looking to the poor for economic relief. We can't afford any more sacrifices.

[toosinbeymen]

I'm not rich and certainly think everyone should pay their fair share but I'll guarantee that if taxes get raised, those who can will move themselves or their assets into tax shelters and the net result will be a decline in tax revenues. There are plenty of tax havens around the world and they will suddenly become super rich if our tax system seeks to improve the justice quotient.

[LeftRight]

Remove the tax shelters. That's an easy solution!

[ebberly]

A 50% rate on all income over $1M/yr. ought to go a long way towards erasing the deficit, especially on the hedge funds currently paying only 15%.

why? by lowering income you will increase tax receipts? The wealthy aren't going to accept a 50% tax rate. They don't have to so why would they?

[Halsey]

One of the biggest hits Reagan took on me..was denying ME the ability to write off credit card interest ...I don't own a home..neve­r will..have NO dependents­....and have about $4,000 in credit card bills (sorry..no exotic vacations.­..all MEDICAL..I have insurance.­.yet...the­se bills are burying me...(canc­ern)... I WILL pay these cards off..but would sure like a tax deduction on this 20% interest I'm paying

Getting the "rich" to part with their money will be tricky....­necessary, but tricky....­there is SO much money out there...wa­iting for the market to turn around....­... perhaps that 5 year averaging would be a good thing...(a­s long as it does NOT add 100 more pages to the IRS code!)

[Oldchef]

Conservatives look back fondly on the Eisenhower years, so let's go back to the percentages of those years. (Hint: executive pay was a lot less than those days, largely due to a punitive tax rate on millionaires of well over 50%). A 50% rate on all income over $1M/yr. ought to go a long way towards erasing the deficit, especially on the hedge funds currently paying only 15%. I read that some funds came out of September with billions made selling short. Most wage earners are paying around 30% between Federal, State and FICA taxes; those making millions trading stocks and selling "financial instruments" should be paying at least as much percentage-wise as those of us wage earners.

[taddles]

Thom Hartman mentioned the 91% tax on every dollar over 3.5 Mill that was in effect during those years too, now there's a progressive tax I can live with. No problem with the rich being rich, I just want them to be paying a similar percentage of their income in taxes that I do, that we all do and they don't.

There's always this BS argument that the top 5% pay more taxes than the rest combined. The problem is that they don't pay the same percentage of their income as the rest of us do and the effect of paying those taxes is negligible on the very rich. When I pay 35% taxes I have to figure out what I have to do without to pay for my kid to go to college, what I have to do without so I can pay for medical insurance, what I have to do without to pay my mortgage. When the rich pay 35% taxes they have to figure out which Bentley they are going to do without for a day.

[Liberal2]

A better way of explaining taxation is to look at disposible income. It's what's left after paying for basic needs: food, shelther, clothing, medical, etc. In an industrial society transportation costs must be included as a basic need because we don't live on farms.

Every nickle in taxes the wealthy pay comes from disposible income (your Bentley example). The bottom 90% dip (to varying degrees) into income needed for human needs (food, shelter, etc.). Any "disposible income" used for (say) entertainment actually comes from decreasing money spent on human needs (buying cheaper foods, not saving for retirement).

[LeftRight]

Forget repealing the BUSH tax cuts, let's repeal the REAGAN tax cuts!!!! This country did just fine under the Kennedy tax rates, thank you very much, even counting the 70's bad economy, which was the result of WAGING THE VIETNAM WAR ON CREDIT!!! (sound familiar?????)

[Liberal2]

a point about the "bad '70s economy". That's the decade when we began importing foreign oil. Remember OPEC placing on embargo on oil to us? That's why the economy went "south" on us. And has not never fully recovered since then.

[LeftRight]

That was a factor, but the primary problem was with the credit coming due on the Vietnam war....

[AmericanSon]

In California, Schwarzenegger is calling for more sales taxes, while keeping taxes for the rich low. Sales taxes are the exact opposite of what should be happening. Sales taxes place more of a burden on the poor and the middle class. People are applauding him for at least considering some type of higher tax, but it is the wrong type of tax.

Sales taxes take money away from the people who spend money the most on necessities from retail stores: the poor and middle class. If people spend less in stores, then the direct result will be less money going to retailers, and consequently, more retailers will go out of business. Then the wholesalers will go out of business. Then more and more people will be out of a job. Then there will be less money in the economy for commerce.

The rich, on the other hand, tend to put their excess money into tax-exempt investments, rather than putting it into purchasing goods and stimulating the economy. It is very clear that income taxes on the rich, both federal and state income taxes, need to be raised significantly in order to stimulate the economy.

[standard]

Jon--

Can you be more specific? What marginal rate are you proposing (what precise percentage of income) and at what level of income (what exact dollar amount) would it kick in? How much additional revenue would it have raised given our aggregate national gross personal income in the most recent year for which that figure is available?

Left as a mere assertion (If the rich paid more, we'd have jobs and health care for all), what you say seems merely naive or ideological. Back it up with specifics, and it could become persuasive and viable.

Would you be willing to advocate reinstituting 5-year income averaging, to make the change more palatable? That modest form of tax relief was available in the 1980's. It avoided hitting folks whose income varied greatly from year to year (writers, performers, folks in industries that downsize periodically) from being taxed in a year they happen to do unusually well as if their income that year was a normal occurrence.

Without detail and nuance, what you're advocating will likely go nowhere. With detail and nuance, however, it can be seen as reasonable--and exactly what's necessary.

[chaz]

Detail and Nuance? Are you nuts? Do you ask for detail and nuance when your sitting on a sinking ship? Detail and Nuance? Hello! I'll give you detail and nuance. Close all tax loopholes and dramatically increase taxes on the Paris Hiltons of the country now.

[standard]

A sinking ship is an analogy, not literally what we're facing.

Absent detail and nuance, what you and Mr. Tasini are advocating will get no further than this obscure corner of HuffPo. I agree with what you both say--but it can't be sold by means of vague, unsupported assertions.

Were you in Congress, would you allow a witness at a hearing to advocate--or would you vote for a bill that mandates--an unspecified "dramatic" increase in taxes without asking what in hell that means in actual dollars and cents? If you did, would you expect to win re-election?