Robert Reich: Why We Should Raise Taxes on the Super-Rich and Lower Them on the Middle Class
I really wish that President Obama was enlisting the likes of Robert Reich instead of those in the Wall Street revolving door on what needs to be done with our tax policies in the United States.
Why We Should Raise Taxes on the Super-Rich and Lower Them on the Middle Class:
My proposal to raise the marginal tax to 70 percent on incomes over $15 million, to 60 percent on incomes between $5 million and $15 million, and to 50 percent on incomes between $500,000 and $5 million, has generated considerable debate. Some progressives think it’s pie-in-the-sky. Here, for example, is Andrew Leonard, a staff writer for Salon:
A 70 percent tax bracket for the richest Americans is pure fantasy – even suggesting it represents such a fundamental disconnect with the world as it exists today that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. I would be deeply worried about the sanity of a Democratic president who proposed such a thing.
Fantasy? I don’t know Mr. Leonard’s age but perhaps he could be forgiven for not recalling that between the late 1940s and 1980 America’s highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent. (Many considered Reagan’s own proposal a “fantasy” before it was enacted.)
Incidentally, during these years the nation’s pre-tax income was far less concentrated at the top than it is now. In the mid-1970s, for example, the top 1 percent got around 9 percent of total income. By 2007, they got 23.5 percent. So if anything, the argument for a higher marginal tax should be even more realistic now than it was during the days when it was taken for granted.
A disconnect with the world as it exists today? That’s exactly the point of proposing it. For years progressives have whined that Democratic presidents (Clinton, followed by Obama) compromise with Republicans while Republican presidents (Reagan through W) stand their ground – with the result that the center of political debate has moved steadily rightward. That’s the reason the world exists the way it does today. Isn’t it about time progressives had the courage of our conviction and got behind what we believe in, in the hope of moving the debate back to where it was?
Would a Democratic president be insane to propose such a thing? Not at all. In fact, polls show an increasing portion of the electorate angry with an insider “establishment” – on Wall Street, in corporate suites, and in Washington – that’s been feathering its nest at the public’s expense. The Tea Party is but one manifestation of a widening perception that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful.
Here's part two of Thom's interview with Robert Reich.
but it does not address the trade deficit, we need investment in this country, and not just roads and bridges, we need production of value-added products. if we have to create a parallel economy to the monopolies, that is what we will have to do......
If implemented in a sensible fashion, it will serve to encourage capital investment within the US. First, it reduces the short term personal rewards many have reaped for shipping production overseas. Second, reasonable investment tax credits rolled into such a proposal can raise the relative returns of domestic investment versus outbound investment. And if we spend the money on eliminating our dependence on oil, our trade deficit can be eliminated, since our spending on imported oil is just a touch more than our entire trade deficit.
St. Ronnie's trickle-down scam is still the law of the land. It will take someone far more courageous than Obama to change that.
Christianity. What a damnable disgrace.
I mean, let's be serious - Obama is FULLY aware of his policies and the demands of the Left, and has simply chosen to eschew them, secure in the knowledge that Dems have nowhere else to go. Instead of championing liberal causes, he wants progressives to be quiet so he can attempt to outmaneuver Republicans. Reich isn't going to change his mind.
The only reason for progressives to vote for Obama is the Supreme Court. Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy are just about ready to retire, and we need to reclaim those slots if we have any hope of turning this country around. Other than that he's useless, except to illustrate to white liberals what being a black Dem feels like - you vote and nobody pays any attention to you until the next election.
We can either take it out of your hides,
or it's off with your heads.
Simple.
Fairly late in the game, MLK experienced an epiphany about our war on the people of Vietnam and spoke out accordingly. Perhaps Obama will likewise soon put his mouth where his mouth has always been, and so to work in spelling out the stakes of the GOP assault on America's families.
See how easy it is? I didn't write: "America's working class".. I wrote instead, "America's families".
Baby steps, Mr. President. You silvered-tongued equivocator.
As long as he was marching for civil rights and demanding voting rights for blacks, MLK was fairly safe. When he began decrying poverty, the tide turned and he lost many supporters, but when he came out and denounced the war, he had to die.
I wish we would learn from history.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
...and the paucity of taxes paid by American corporations is all part of the “trickle down” myth. Since the advent of the income tax “trickle down” has proven to be a wrench in the economic machine and produces the exact opposite of what it advertizes. Further, it has lead to the worst economic episodes in the country's history. Every single reduction of the highest marginal tax rate has lead to economic stagnation, recession or depression while, OTOH, each increase in the marginal rate has resulted a period of prosperity for ALL economic classes.
This is not due solely to the increased government revenue but, more important, how money moves through the society.
When the tax is low the penalty for profit taking is low and earnings are withdrawn and diverted into the speculative markets – stocks, bonds, commodities, housing and derivatives. This in turn creates over heated markets and artificial valuations of the target investments which produces unsustainable bubbles and ultimate crashes. Coupled with regulatory agencies that have been neutered, understaffed or bought off it's a financial sociopath's wet dream.
When the rate is raised the penalty for profit taking is high so earnings are directed into tax sheltered avenues such as new equipment and facilities, R & D, new product development, increased hiring and increased worker benefits all of which builds wealth, stability and a loyal work force.
The current marginal tax rate is the lowest it has been since the crash of 1929.
"we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country." …..Thomas Jefferson
but you said it far better than I could.
Basically, if you tax the shit out of the rich they hire people as a loophole. People are working again, revenue is flowing into the government, and the economy improves. It's a win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win situation.
Except for the people that want to own every-fucking-thing - they have to be satisfied with slightly less than every-fucking-thing.
. . . by the Democrats before the "deficit" debate ever began.
And even before the Democrats extended the bipartisan Bush/Obama tax cuts, the most a Clinton or Obama style Democrat has endorsed is a lousy 3% raise to 39%.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
From Mr. Reich's post: "Besides, the argument that the nation shouldn’t impose an obligation on the rich because they can wiggle out of it is an odd one. Taken to its logical extreme it would suggest we allow them to do whatever antisocial act they wish – grand larceny, homicide, or plunder – because they can always manage to avoid responsibility for it."
1) They are using their excess wealth to corrupt our government and our society.
2) They are destroying our economic by a) locking away vast sums of money from the productive economy and b) providing the speculative economy with funds to fuel the boom and bust cycles that are rapidly tearing our economy apart.
" We Should Raise Taxes on the Super-Rich and Lower Them on the Middle Class"
But given the current batch of Democrats in both the congress and the White House, how likely is this to happen? Confidentially, I'm not holding my breath.
Good, that'll be one less conservative....
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Um, little chance to none. Our current batch of Defective-crats came without spines.
NOBODY 2012
I would start with 94% marginals like Eisenhower had. I knew there had to be a reason why the people said I like Ike!
Tax them rich bast**ds.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
...Robert Reich instead of all the Wall Street types, but unfortunately Obama's agenda is consistent with that of the Wall Streeters and not with Reich. I imagine Obama views Reich as a dangerous Lefty.
I would rather eat them. I have here a recipe for rich people rump roast in au jus. Who wants it?
Comments are closed on this entry