[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Class civil warfare (click to view)
Date: September 20, 2011
Claiming it would help slash trillions of dollars from the next decade of deficits, President Obama once again called for increased taxation on America's wealthiest citizens yesterday, embracing his first major cause of the campaign season. Evoking the name of billionaire Warren Buffett, who, as we all remember, wrote a famous editorial in the New York Times last month scolding politicians to "stop coddling" richies like him, Obama called for raising income taxes on Americans making more than $250,000 a year and proposed hiking taxes on earnings secured through stocks and other investments.

In predictable fashion, the Republicans quickly sprung to the defence of the targeted billionaires, blasting the Obama plan as "class warfare" — their favorite swear word for rich-taxing. But what does "class warfare" even mean? Speaker Boehner described it as "pitting one group of Americans against another," presumably with torches and pitchforks. Some cartoonists have depicted it as greedy peasants shaking dollar bills from upside-down businessmen. Either way, the term evokes some degree of cruel vindictiveness, or as Paul Ryan put it, championing the "fear, envy and anxiety" of the have-nots at the expense of the haves.

But what's funny is that a lot of the rich folk in question don't seem particularly frightened. Many of them are actually downright cool with the Obama plan. Along with Buffett himself, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, HR Block founder Henry Bloch, former Bear Sterns CEO Ace Greenberg, former MGM chief Harry Sloan, and even noted millionaire creationist comedian Ben Stein have all came out in favor, and one imagines there are lots more to follow. As I've noted before, wealth in America actually correlates fairly high with liberalism, and even when it doesn't, as in the case of Republicans Sloan and Stein, it at least correlates with a high degree of noblesse oblige in matters of taxation. We saw a similar example of this back in 2001, when a bunch of mega-millionaires assembled to denounce the Republican Party's plan to eliminate the inheritance tax, another rich-targeting program that the rich were more than okay with.

So the politics of the whole thing are more than a little baffling. It's not at all clear whose water the GOP is carrying by opposing Obama's call for the rich to pay their "fair share," other than some very hardcore libertarian ideologues who view all forms of taxation as theft, and all rich folk as Randian supermen who deserve no burden for their success.

To be fair, the current Republican line does shy away from referring to millionaires as such, preferring the label "job creators." One's ability to create jobs is directly correlated to the amount of cash in one's bank account, you see, which does make some sense. Bill Gates could probably hire me to do something tomorrow, if he really wanted. But it's also true, as The Simpsons taught us, that Mr. Gates did not get rich from writing a lot of cheques, either. Given the choice, folks like him would probably prefer to outsource their errands to some cheap non-union J.J. on a different continent, and pass the savings along to himself. In any case, the American rich are taxed at quite historically low levels already, thanks to President Bush, and that didn't do much to spare the country from its current doldrums.

Unless we're still clinging to "trickle down" theories, it seems the most surefire way to create jobs at this point would be to put more cash in the pockets of the lower classes, who actually do the sort of day-to-day retail and service sector shopping that employs people like themselves. In a capitalist system, job creators only create where demand exists, after all. For all the fear-mongering about socialism, it's the constant expectation that economic prosperity will flow from the elite-down, rather than bottom-up, that truly evokes spectres of a planned economy.

Obama has no-doubt polled his tax-hiking scheme from every angle, and all the available evidence on that front suggests it's one of the most popular things he could possibly do. So embracing the position is hardly political genius on his part. He's just lucky he's got such incompetent opponents.

[xerxes]

Good cartoon and good editorial.

[CKASlacker]

Nice post JJ.

I figure that if you have $100k in tax rebates, that surely the economy is better off by giving 100 working-class families a $1000 break, as opposed to the mega-rich guy a $100,000 break. The 100 families are more likely to spend that extra money locally (new flatscreen, clothes, taking the kids to 6 flags, local restaurant...) than the mega-rich who might invest in Wall Street, put the money in a tax haven (Caymans), or travel somewhere exotic.

The economy is in bad shape -- surely we want people consuming and spending to give it a boost and create some jobs, no?

[Psudo]

CKASlacker wrote:

The 100 families are more likely to spend that extra money locally (new flatscreen, clothes, taking the kids to 6 flags, local restaurant...) than the mega-rich who might invest in Wall Street, put the money in a tax haven (Caymans), or travel somewhere exotic.

Investing in Wall Street puts money into the local economy in much the same way as buying a Sony flatscreen does. Otherwise, your point is well taken.

[eureka]

CKASlacker wrote:

PDT_Armataz_01_34 Nice post JJ.

I figure that if you have $100k in tax rebates, that surely the economy is better off by giving 100 working-class families a $1000 break, as opposed to the mega-rich guy a $100,000 break. The 100 families are more likely to spend that extra money locally (new flatscreen, clothes, taking the kids to 6 flags, local restaurant...) than the mega-rich who might invest in Wall Street, put the money in a tax haven (Caymans), or travel somewhere exotic.

The economy is in bad shape -- surely we want people consuming and spending to give it a boost and create some jobs, no?

There is ample evidence of the "leakage" of moneys with breaks to the wealthy. You are right on the money.

[bootlegga]

xerxes wrote:

Good cartoon and good editorial.

I'll second that.

[Macguyver]

bootlegga wrote:

xerxes wrote:

Good cartoon and good editorial.

I'll second that.

Motion carried. Tax the f*ck out of them. Lol, jk, I like a structure where the rich pay the same % as us down here in the trenches.

[Teikiatsu]

Quote:

Along with Buffett himself, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, HR Block founder Henry Bloch, former Bear Sterns CEO Ace Greenberg, former MGM chief Harry Sloan, and even noted millionaire creationist comedian Ben Stein

Nothing stops them from paying more taxes right now:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454
HAVE A BALL!!

But wait... Buffett owes a lot in taxes and he's been avoiding it for years....
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/ed ... z1WRoIlYSf

[Gunnair]

Macguyver wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

xerxes wrote:

Good cartoon and good editorial.

I'll second that.

Motion carried. Tax the f*ck out of them. Lol, jk, I like a structure where the rich pay the same % as us down here in the trenches.

I don't.

If I make $50,000 a year at %25 tax, then I have $37,500 left to live on. Bloggins the III making 500,000 still has $375,000 to play with.

Wonder who has the harder time making ends meet.

I'd rather see Mr. Bloggins pay more. It just means one less

in the four car garage, and maybe they buy a 3500 sq foot hour instead of a 5000 sq foot house.

[Psudo]

American taxpayers already pay federal taxes progressively. The question is "How steep should the curve be?"

That link shows that if you sort the US population into five income classes, the lowest income bracket effectively pays 1.6% of their income (mostly in payroll taxes), the 2nd lowest 7.3%, the middle 14.1%, then 18.9%, then 25.5%. The top 5% pay 25.8%, the top 1% 28.0%, and the top 0.1% 30.4%.

The top fifth of the country pays less payroll taxes because they are employers or owners rather than employees. Corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes both partially make up the difference, but there's arguably still room for improvement. Government is afraid to cut payroll taxes (even on the poor!) because they pay for things like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance (entitlements, not welfare programs). Thus, entitlement programs are the least progressive part of our tax system, and hurt unemployment by making it expensive to hire cheap labor.

Literal welfare programs, safety nets for the poor paid for by the rich, are better for progressive taxation but lack legal entitlement status, where the poor can sue the government if they fail to receive their due. So the choice is between higher employment and more progressive taxation, or lower employment and better safety nets. You can improve the best-case scenario or the worst-case scenario, but not both.

Both sides of the aisle can support progressive taxation without compromising their values. Right-wingers can by supporting reduced entitlements, so rather than payroll taxes making low-income workers' paychecks smaller you have a negative income tax rate making them bigger. Left-wingers can by supporting higher taxes on the rich (though they ought to focus on corporate and capital gains, not income and payroll) and perhaps swapping out entitlement programs for real, genuine welfare programs.

I don't see how anyone can support progressive taxation and entitlement programs at the same time. One conflicts with the other.

[DanSC]

Teikiatsu wrote:

Nothing stops them from paying more taxes right now:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454
HAVE A BALL!

[Murray_Smith]

Teikiatsu wrote:

Nothing stops them from paying more taxes right now:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454
HAVE A BALL!!

Donating to the treasury : paying a tax :: finding money on the ground : receiving a paycheck.

Nothing stops anyone from giving money to others for no reason.