I’ve got to say that I am shocked and confused as to why exactly people would support tax cuts for our society`s wealthiest. People have labeled Obama a radical and a socialist for willing to increase income tax from 35 to 39 percent on a minority of Americans. Where is the line between socialism and capitalism? Does it say somewhere that 39% income tax for those earning more than 250000$ is socialist policy? If so, most American presidents since the implementation of the 16th Amendment allowing income tax would be categorized as socialist. Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower, under this label would be ‘’socialists’’.
Here are a few interesting facts that should have you thinking about your response to current tax legislation.

1) Currently, the top marginal rate of income tax is 35%. This means that the MOST current wealthy Americans will have to hand over to the government is 35% of their income.

2) Marginal income tax is currently at some of its lowest levels in history. Even raising by a bit would not mark a radical shift from the traditional levels. In fact, traditionally marginal income tax is much higher than 50%.

3) Almost all of America`s modern right wing presidents had tremendously higher levels of income tax for the rich. Under Eisenhower, marginal income tax was as high as 92% for the rich. Under Nixon and Ford, it was about 70%. Even under Ronald Reagan, the conservative crusader, income tax for the rich was higher!! 50% up until 1986, 38.5% in 1987. There was only one year under Reagan where marginal income tax was lower than current levels.
@thraxle
I challenge you to demonstrate the positive value on America as a whole of extending tax reduction benefits to society’s wealthiest.

Secondly, I urge you to ask yourself: How have Bush’s tax cuts helped America’s economy since they were implemented in 2001? Remember, that they have not been repealed, and that they are currently still active. If these tax cuts were so fantastic, wouldn’t their benefit have been proven in 9 years since their implementation?

Thirdly, you guys call Obama socialist, I suppose you believe that Obama’s tax laws, signed into legislation as part of the economic stimulus plan in 2009, that reduced taxes for 98 per cent of taxpayers, bringing tax rates to their lowest levels in 60 years, are ‘socialist’ too?

Source:http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

I challenge you to demonstrate the positive value on America as a whole of extending tax reduction benefits to society"s wealthiest.

Since the recession is supposedly over, you have to wonder why jobs haven't started to come back online more quickly in the private sector. Many of the businesses that remained solvent during the recession have created a very strong cash position for themselves and are definitely in a position to reinvest that money into jobs/equipment/buildings, etc. They've been hoarding their cash because they simply haven't know what to expect from Washington. I have a good feeling that extending the tax cuts, and getting rid of the uncertainty, will be a positive thing for the private sector and you'll see private hiring begin to gradually come back. Bravo Obama......Bravo!

Secondly, I urge you to ask yourself: How have Bush"s tax cuts helped America"s economy since they were implemented in 2001?
Remember, that they have not been repealed, and that they are currently still active. If these tax cuts were so fantastic, wouldn"t their benefit have been proven in 9 years since their implementation?

The economy was amazingly strong during the mid-2000's despite 9/11's effect on our country (and the world). It wasn't till the real estate bubble burst that things started going downhill.

Thirdly, you guys call Obama socialist, I suppose you believe that Obama"s tax laws, signed into legislation as part of the economic stimulus plan in 2009, that reduced taxes for 98 per cent of taxpayers, bringing tax rates to their lowest levels in 60 years, are "socialist" too?

You do realize that only 50% of the country actually pays taxes, right? We already have a welfare state here in the U.S. Lowering the tax rate on middle America and below, while increasing taxes on the rich is precisely what socialism is! Tax the rich......give it to the poor. How is this not obvious?

4 things that made all of these posts interesting

One) Why do people keep referring to fox news as some agenda driven source, like the huffingtonpost, the new york times, and the los angelos times don't also have a inversely similar agenda?

Two) Does anyone seriously believe the country is only at a 9.8% unemployment rate? That number is so hypoinflated I would argue the true value is much much higher.

Three) Why do people, such as Sam, who I imagine is a fanboy of Obama, get so upset when anyone tries to refute anything the anointed one has done?

Four) Why is it every time yodel gets in to an argument he has to refer to his high IQ?

and also, as a point, stop referencing wikipedia as a source for any information, JP, would you reference wiki in an academic paper for your graduate studies?

rhetorical, no, than don't do it here.

Perhaps I should have said "socialistic" so I don't have to get the precise definition of socialism thrown back at me.

Tax the rich.......support the poor......50% entitlements........socialistic

“Since the recession is supposedly over, you have to wonder why jobs haven't started to come back online more quickly in the private sector. Many of the businesses that remained solvent during the recession have created a very strong cash position for themselves and are definitely in a position to reinvest that money into jobs/equipment/buildings, etc. They've been hoarding their cash because they simply haven't know what to expect from Washington. I have a good feeling that extending the tax cuts, and getting rid of the uncertainty, will be a positive thing for the private sector and you'll see private hiring begin to gradually come back. Bravo Obama......Bravo!”
Really? Rob I expected better from you. This regurgitation of Fox News pundits’ opinions doesn’t make for a very productive conversation. I was hoping you would give me an original analysis but alas I will give this the obvious retort anyway. A 4% change in the highest marginal tax rate isn’t what’s scaring potential entrepreneurs and current business owners from expanding their businesses. Keep in mind the debate has always been if we keep the tax cuts for the highest marginal tax rate, not the lower marginal tax rates. Aspiring entrepreneurs are not scared of starting businesses because they *might* end up very successful and then have to pay higher taxes. They’re not starting business or creating jobs because of the fiscal situation the country and the world is in. Furthermore a *successful* business is going to make the decision to expand or downsize in an effort to become more viable regardless of a 4% change in income tax. Fixing our economy by taxing the rich and spending money is the only way to get us back on the right track. And once we’re on the right track our economy will begin to boom again. And then we need to continue to tax the rich in order to pay off our national debt... or we can cut defense. Conculusion: Nobody is afraid of losing 4% of their profits in a hypothetically successful business venture. And if people really were wouldn’t we have seen this in the 90s under Clinton? Considering the 90s was the most successful period in our history, fiscally, I think not. The same applies to companies considering expansion as well.


“The economy was amazingly strong during the mid-2000's despite 9/11's effect on our country (and the world). It wasn't till the real estate bubble burst that things started going downhill. “
Terrorist attacks don’t create recessions, they never have. Ask the IRA and the United Kingdom. I don’t know where you got this idea Rob but you seem really like to cling to it. A terrorist attack will cause a dip in invest confidence for a short period (days), ultimately what caused a permanent decrease in investor confidence is fiscal security not fear after a single terrorist attack. If we had something like 9/11 every year for the past 10 years then you might be on to something Rob, but we haven’t so this doesn’t really make sense. If you really want to push this point further I will point you to other nations that have faced terrorist attacks (over a long period) and nations that have faced singular attacks like ourselves (Spain’s Madrid train bombing) for reference.


“You do realize that only 50% of the country actually pays taxes, right? We already have a welfare state here in the U.S. Lowering the tax rate on middle America and below, while increasing taxes on the rich is precisely what socialism is! Tax the rich......give it to the poor. How is this not obvious? I challenge you to demonstrate the positive value on America as a whole of extending tax reduction benefits to society"s wealthiest. “
Well I’m glad you said that Rob, here’s an excerpt from the post you just replied to:
Does it say somewhere that 39% income tax for those earning more than 250000$ is socialist policy? If so, most American presidents since the implementation of the 16th Amendment allowing income tax would be categorized as socialist. Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower, under this label would be ‘’socialists’’.
Here are a few interesting facts that should have you thinking about your response to current tax legislation.

1) Currently, the top marginal rate of income tax is 35%. This means that the MOST current wealthy Americans will have to hand over to the government is 35% of their income.

2) Marginal income tax is currently at some of its lowest levels in history. Even raising by a bit would not mark a radical shift from the traditional levels. In fact, traditionally marginal income tax is much higher than 50%.

3) Almost all of America`s modern right wing presidents had tremendously higher levels of income tax for the rich. Under Eisenhower, marginal income tax was as high as 92% for the rich. Under Nixon and Ford, it was about 70%. Even under Ronald Reagan, the conservative crusader, income tax for the rich was higher!! 50% up until 1986, 38.5% in 1987. There was only one year under Reagan where marginal income tax was lower than current levels.
So Rob, after reading this I am curious -- are you equally pissed at Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Obama? I mean… their policies were ‘socialist’ right? Ignoring that fact that Robert Keynes was an economic genius and that consumption economics during a recession have been proven to work over and over again, what are you suggesting we do with the massive numbers of unemployed who are still searching for work? I am mean seriously what’s your suggestion?

When you give the poor more money, or take less money from them, they spend it. That’s a truth of macroeconomics, did you ever take macroeconomics? Do you know what aggregate spending is? The rich, as you just said it yourself, aren’t spending money. The poor and the middleclass on the other hand are spending. And as Robert Keynes explained: spending is the key to recovery from a recession.

wishbonetrolllolzzzzzz

The burden of whether or not the wealthiest should be taxed at a higher marginal rate should be on those advocating the tax, not those advocating the tax cut. Before the income can be taxed, it has to be produced. There should be good reason for taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another.

A possibly good reason, if you are arguing on purely pragmatic, not moral, grounds, is that being productive incites envy. Gratification of envy is a public good: all the enviers are simultaneously gratifed by the reduction of (someone else's) income. So the gratification of envy outweighs the cost to the producer who are being envied.

But if you make this argument, be out in front and call it what it is: an envy gratification tax.

A better argument is that those who are successful became successful at the expense of those around them. It is reasonable to assume that those who are successful will do whatever they can to remain so, at the expense of others. The government's job is to foster an environment where everyone can be successful, as opposed to preserve the power/success of those that are currently successful. Do not confused this with saying the government shouldn't protect success, it should, but it should also protect those who are not successful, yet, from those who are successful.

There's a reason people aren't allowed to own monopolies anymore, it's the same reason we have higher taxes on the rich and the same reason we have welfare and unemployment aid. It's so that as a whole the best and brightest will be allowed to become successful. If it wasn't for these safeguards on society we wouldn't have many of the millionaires we have today especially in certain fields (art, music, sports).

Anyone ever hear that story about the ultra-smart ultra-bright daughter of a crack whore and drunkard? She got into Harvard with a full ride and is a CEO today.