For the sake of discussion at what point should higher rates kick in if not 250k. If it is not 250 should it be 300 or 500? I personally find it offensive that the tax rates stop increasing at a certain point. I have read a lot of articles that point to the higher concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the country. I think that it is only fair that these people have a higher rate of tax as their income goes higher especially given the crisis we are facing.

I would be in favor of a higher starting point than 250000 since it really isn't that much many places. 350,000 would be my vote, but again I would defer to economists who know a heck of alot more about what drives the economy.

You should really read the plan. From Section II of

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/site...h12_1_2010.pdf

-spence

The earlier Obama plan didn't really kick the hurt until your income was 500K or above. Unless you live a pretty excellent life this would be considered wealthy by most people.

-spence

Effect on the economy wasn't my point. My point was with regards to the extremely poor financial decisions a huge portion of the country makes. If Salty is right in saying that people will have to sell their homes without the deduction, then it is just another example of John Q. Public making poor decisions with his money and playing his small (as minuscule as it is) role in hurting the economy. The sad part is that I know at least a handful of people facing this exact situation.

People should not be buying houses without 6 months worth of bills saved up and a surplus of income each month. Strict? Yup. Means many people wouldn't be living in a home right now? Yup. But it's the responsible decision.

Absolutely. An already battered market would crash even harder. The government subsidizes everyone's house so you're paying for it either way.

I'm guessing by the above that you believe home ownership is a good investment. I disagree and see it as a luxury purchase. Even with prices as low as they are right now, I think home ownership is a poor investment in most cases - assuming you purchase a home at market-value that is in good condition and doesn't require any major repairs.

In my area, you can rent a house for almost the same price as the mortgage would be for a similar house. However as a renter: no property taxes, costly repairs are covered by the owner, no maintenance costs, etc. Obviously there are downsides as well: don't own the home, terms to using the property, a lease, asking permission to change use of the land.

I read this article a few years ago and, granted, it's from before the economy blew up. I still think many of the points are very applicable today.
Renting vs. Buying: The Realities of Home-Ownership

Everyone, please keep in mind that all of the above is on a personal, case-by-case basis. It's not about what's best for the overall economy, but about individuals owning homes in general. I'm sure Jim in CT will dig up something I didn't think of though.

The top 1% of Americans pay about 38% of the federal taxes. The share they pay is higher than it was 15 years ago. To me, that's pretty damn progressive.

I agree no one needs a billion dollars. But if someone has the ability to earn it and does, how much of that should be confiscated by taxes? How much of someone else's pile do you feel entitled to?

Here in CT, those at the top pay 35% in federal income tax, and 6+% in state income tax. That's 41% of their earnings that they hand over. That seems like a whole lot to me.

As I said, let's restore some sanity to the spending levels, and see where that gets us. If we can't eliminate the deficit with reasonable cuts, then yes we have to raise taxes, and common sense says you start with the billionaires. But you have to cut spending as much as you can, before you take more of someone else's money.

How do you raise taxes on working folks so that cops can keep retiring in their 40's? Anyone want to try explaining that to me?

Jim, You said, "...those at the top pay 35% in federal income tax, and 6+% in state income tax. That's 41% of their earnings that they hand over. That seems like a whole lot to me." That's a good point.

Don't forget that they probably also hit the AMT so the 35% is on the first dollar earned (that is, the entire amount with no deductions). That adds to the total tax burden.

Home ownership meant something before the Supreme Court (particularly Justice Souter) ruled in favor of imminent domain and destroyed the concept af ownership.

Sometimes, I find it amusing when people talk about who's paying taxes without mentioning who's making money.

-spence

Spence, no one denies that the wealthy are, by definition, wealthy because they have more money than people who are not wealthy. So don't pat yourself on the back for what you thought was a GOTCHA! comment.

The fact is, 1% of the population provides 38% of the federal income tax revenue. So, just how much of Bill Gates; money do you feel entitled to? How much of Bill Gates' money should cops get to confiscate, so that they can retire at age 42? Can you answer that?

I think we all can agree that the pension system for many municipal employees needs to be changes on a going forward basis. People should not be able to retire after 20 years and collect a pension for the rest of their lives. Based upon what I have read on this board this is agreed. While the top earners may pay 38% I think you have to look at how much their income has increased over the last 20 years to put this in the proper context. At the end of this post I will put a link to an article citing how much the upper strata of income has gained over the last few years. The American citizens have bailed out the financiers and indirectly the hedge funds and allowed them to continue to make massive amounts of money. It is only fair and equitable that they pony up and contribute to bringing our country back to stability.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Mosholu, the rich will always increase their wealth faster than the rest of us. That's the way the math works, because they have more disposable income to invest and grow.

To me, the answer is, if you want what they have, then do what they did to get it. But I don't see any right I have to make a claim to someone else's pile.

We bailed out some of these folks with TARP, and many conservatives were adamantly opposed to that, myself included. Bad businesses should be allowed to fail.

lotta interesting stuff at that link...


As the very phrase "power structure" suggests, it is not easy to change power arrangements, even in a country where people have won freedom of speech and the right to vote. To start with, it is necessary to understand the intricacies of a power structure and how it was constructed in order to change it -- that's where the power structure research discussed in other parts of this site comes in. The following articles include analysis of the successes and failures of social change movements in the U.S. as well as advice for progressive activists on how to move forward.

What Social Science Can Tell Us About Social Change
It's necessary to know what works and doesn't work, and what role activists can play. So the centerpiece of this section describes what can be learned from the social sciences about creating greater equality.

The Left and the Right In Thinking, Personality, and Politics
This is an essay based on research in psychology and social psychology that brings together ideas and findings that may shed some light on the differences between leftists and rightists.

Stop Blaming the Media!
Activists spend an enormous amount of time worrying about, dissecting, and criticizing the media as a major source of their problems, but this document suggestions that the media are not that influential and can, in fact, be used constructively by activists on many occasions.

Bridging the Gap Between Liberals and Leftists: Where Douglas S. Massey's New Liberal Vision Falls Short
Massey claims that many centrist Americans will vote for candidates who stand up for their liberal principles, but I don't think they'll be willing to bet on a divided and contentious set of liberals and leftists who cannot develop new strategies to work together in the face of their ongoing failures in bringing about greater equality and access to markets. Liberals cannot do it alone, and leftists have to refocus their energies.

Introducing Social Change to Future Elites
Social change may require change-oriented elites on the inside as well as activists on the outside. Social psychologist Richard L. Zweigenhaft -- with whom I have co-authored several books -- explains this point in a wonderful talk he gave at an elite private school in 2006. He then follows up with a paper originally published in Radical Teacher in 2009.
.......................


we could...just for giggles...confiscate all of the wealth of the top earners at whatever level you determine will make you feel good and then proceed to run the government for a few months, barely put a dent in the debt and deficit and point fingers and scoff at the formerly wealthy as they writhe in misery and allow the Obama types prove that they are the "ONES" that truly know how to run and manage a fair and equitable society with massive expanding social programs and noone to fund them or create wealth and jobs...
Atlas Shrugged

ooooooh...we can turn all of their mansions and vacation homes into affordable housing apartments and homeless housing...not sure who will pay the property taxes though...oh, well, I'm sure the towns and cities can get by without the money

Unless they work for the state, of course!

I never said I wanted to take something away from anyone who works for the state...I want those people to take less from me. That's not even remotely the same as me saying I want to take what's theirs, is it???

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically - Yahoo! News

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadh orse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::bshake:

S&P just lowered the US rating to "negative". :smash: This is the big boys hitting Obama over the head.

Obama?
Try the entire government, including the GOP.

And to be clear (where's the fun in that?) they changed the OUTLOOK, not the rating from stable to negative, meaning the OUTLOOK is for us to drop from AAA/A-1+.

Which means, not much.

Because the U.S. has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be
very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the
path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook
on the long-term rating to negative from stable.

Basically, fix the budget, fix the outlook.