OFFLINE

Why The Richest Among Us Deserve To Be Exempt From “Shared Sacrifice”

Posted on 04 July 2011 by CommonSenseDad
Dear Washington, D.C.,

I’m writing this letter today because the time has come to expose the injustices our nation’s wealthiest citizens are suffering. The richest among us have had enough! They’re sick of hearing about how they can “afford” to participate in “shared sacrifice” by returning to Clinton-era tax rates, or closing tax loopholes that allow them to pay less in taxes than an average middle class family. They’re tired of hearing about how devastating spending cuts have been to low-income and middle class families across our country. Nobody has spent any time talking about the pain our neighbors are going through behind those mansion doors. The truth must be known, no matter how many tears are shed because of it!

I am not a rich man, but I have seen rich people before. I’ve even met some in person! These are good people, just trying to scrape by and save up enough money for their fourth Maserati at their Italian vacation home on Lake Como. Now I can’t confirm any of this first hand, but I’ve heard through the grapevine that these people are in meltdown mode! They’re scared out of their minds by the Democrats proposals across the country to raise their tax rates a couple percentage points, and possibly even eliminate a few tax loopholes here and there. A confidential source who works as a bathroom attendant for one of them told me his boss has already started preparing for the worst! He said he saw a case of Charmin Ultra toilet paper stashed away in the back of the fourth floor closet! This coming after years of importing the finest 100% virgin pulp three-ply toilet paper money can buy.

And that’s not even the worst of it. This same person told me something that made my stomach turn in horror. He reported seeing one of the children in the family drinking a regular bottle of Ice Mountain water! What’s next for these poor people, water from the tap?! Apparently, they’re trying to save their garage full of Fiji water for a worst case scenario, but to put their children through the hell of drinking common folk bottled water is ridiculous!

Now here’s the kicker… My informant tells me this family isn’t alone in their newly found struggles and fears. Their neighbors have cut back on their vacation time ever since Barack Obama took office. Last year, they only managed to spend 8 months out of state between their 3 vacation homes. Only 8 months! What have we come to as a country when our nation’s millionaires and billionaires are cutting back on their vacations out of fear? I think it’s clear that we all need to take a long hard look in the mirror and re-evaluate our priorities. Now more than ever before, we should be asking our nation’s children, single mothers, disabled, and elderly to bear the brunt of our shared sacrifice. Our nation’s wealthiest are, after all, expected to be the nation’s biggest job creators (and the nation I’m talking about here is, of course, China)!

Never mind the fact that 10 years after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, our nation’s unemployment rate is still over 9% (and that’s just the ones who are still counted). Never mind the fact that President Obama’s 2 year renewal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% costs more per year than the entire SNAP program costs to help feed 43 million people. Never mind the fact that corporate profits rose 200% since 1990, while median family incomes have risen only 2%. Never mind the fact that tax and accounting loopholes benefiting the nation’s wealthiest cost the government over $20 billion annually, which is 3 times more than the entire WIC program costs to feed over 9 million women and children per year. Pay no mind to any of that. As you can plainly see, we just cannot afford to force our nation’s richest to participate in our “shared sacrifice.”

For these reasons, I want to send a huge “Thank you!” to our Republican party leaders for sticking up for the wealthiest among us. Thank you, as well, to Charles and David Koch for lining their pocke– er– I mean giving them the “strength” to do so through their support. I will continue to work my tail off to get the truth out, and I know you’ll continue to work in my best interests to make sure that your wealthy friends aren’t affected by this so-called “shared sacrifice.” Ronald Reagan would be proud of you for it… even though Ronald Reagan himself taxed the rich at a 50% rate for most of his presidency. But let’s continue to ignore the facts and numbers that don’t suit us… It’s what we’re best at.

Sincerely,

Brainwashed Fox News Fan Guy
Anywhere, USA

OFFLINE

the "rich" do share in the majority of the sacrifice when it comes to tax burden, so what's the problem? it's not as if they're getting off scott-free, or not doing their part. this class warfare is madness! the bottom 47% of the country doesn't pay any income taxes whatsoever. that's the bottom half of the country. so the top 53% are paying the way for everyone else. what's the problem? not enough? i think there's too much envy going on in this country. too much covetousness. we want what they have. we deserve what they have. they don't deserve it. they don't understand what it's like struggling. they didn't earn what they have. they need to give it to us, so everyone is equal. that sort of thing. i just fundamentally oppose this attitude. if you want what they have, then go out and get it yourself.

OFFLINE

I am not envious of anyone.  We get by just fine with what we have.  Really, we do.  I just don't understand why wars that cost us half of what tax income our country takes in are important to continue and I certainly don't understand why people who have more aren't concerned in thevery least that their country is going in the toilet partly because they get off without having to pay equal taxes to what others have to considering their means.  I would rather be poor all the days of my life than spend one day as a miserly **** that could not give a crap about those suffering in his own country.  You, Dod, support this?  I thought you were a Christian.  Didn't Jesus say,"as you do unto the least of these, you do unto me?  You fed me when I was hungry, clothed me when I had no clothes etc..."

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
the "rich" do share in the majority of the sacrifice when it comes to tax burden, so what's the problem? it's not as if they're getting off scott-free, or not doing their part. this class warfare is madness! the bottom 47% of the country doesn't pay any income taxes whatsoever. that's the bottom half of the country. so the top 53% are paying the way for everyone else. what's the problem? not enough? i think there's too much envy going on in this country. too much covetousness. we want what they have. we deserve what they have. they don't deserve it. they don't understand what it's like struggling. they didn't earn what they have. they need to give it to us, so everyone is equal. that sort of thing. i just fundamentally oppose this attitude. if you want what they have, then go out and get it yourself.

I agree.  This redistributing of wealth is just plain wrong.  But imo, a flat-tax fixes a lot of this class warfare stuff. Everyone pays a certain percentage of their income.  Rich still pay more in terms of $ figures though because they make more.  The poorest among us (the unemployed or the handicapped or helpless) are exempt unless they make over a certain amount.

I think with the right leadership in Congress, the economy would be stimulated.  Taxes could be lowered, regulation could be reduced or eliminated and jobs would return to our country.  Employment could go back up and thus, more people could find themselves making enough money to pay their fair share of taxes.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

I think with the right leadership in Congress, the economy would be stimulated.  Taxes could be lowered, regulation could be reduced or eliminated and jobs would return to our country.  Employment could go back up and thus, more people could find themselves making enough money to pay their fair share of taxes.

Because lowering taxes and reducing regulation worked so well in the run-up to 2008?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

I think with the right leadership in Congress, the economy would be stimulated.  Taxes could be lowered, regulation could be reduced or eliminated and jobs would return to our country.  Employment could go back up and thus, more people could find themselves making enough money to pay their fair share of taxes.

Because lowering taxes and reducing regulation worked so well in the run-up to 2008?

well it did for almost a decade. in fact, it was the regulations that mandated bad loans to lower income families that brought the housing market down.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Lelania Bailey:
I am not envious of anyone.  We get by just fine with what we have.  Really, we do.  I just don't understand why wars that cost us half of what tax income our country takes in are important to continue and I certainly don't understand why people who have more aren't concerned in thevery least that their country is going in the toilet partly because they get off without having to pay equal taxes to what others have to considering their means.  I would rather be poor all the days of my life than spend one day as a miserly **** that could not give a crap about those suffering in his own country.  You, Dod, support this?  I thought you were a Christian.  Didn't Jesus say,"as you do unto the least of these, you do unto me?  You fed me when I was hungry, clothed me when I had no clothes etc..."

but here's the point i'm trying to make. our tax code is already heavily progressive; meaning, the more your income is, the greater percentage of your income goes to taxes. it's the very system you're advocating. i mean i could give you the numbers all day long. top 1% pays about 40% of all taxes. top 10% pays 71% of taxes, and top 50% pays 97% of all taxes. this means that from 2%-10% pays 31% of taxes, and from 11%-50% pays 26% of taxes, and from 47% down, pays 0% of taxes.

so i just really don't understand why people on the left go on and on about tax breaks for the rich, as if they're making out like bandits off of the backs of the poor. ESPECIALLY when in reality, all of the programs that benefit the poor, are paid for by the top 50% of income earners, who will never benefit from such programs. so how much should we confiscate? when asked this question, i have yet to hear an answer from anyone on the left.

and it's not the wealthy's fault that we go to war. that's the politicians. well, i guess you could say it is the wealthy's fault then, because all of our politicians make way more than the average american does. and it's not just republicans either. world wars 1 and 2 were carried out by democratic presidents, and vietnam was started by democrats kennedy and johnson. ciinton had bosnia, kosovo, and somalia. more democrats voted for the wars in iraq and afghanistan than voted against them.

so in closing, i just really have a hard time understanding the mentality of the left on this topic.

OFFLINE

I will just say this, your boy Bush cut taxes, passed an unfunded prescription drug plan, started two wars.  YOUR GUY DID THAT.  Honestly, I have no idea how you reconcile your religion with your politics.  If you saw Jesus on the side of the street you'd probably tell him to get a job =/  

And, no.  We weren't in the red when GWB first entered office.  It all went down hill from that point on.  

OFFLINE

i never voted for bush, nor would i exactly call him a poster boy for conservativism. the left is very quick to point out that bush and his ilk are neo-cons aka, big government, big spending, social conservatives. i would also contend that charity and taxes are not one in the same. in fact, it is democrats who want to lower the deductions on charitable giving. but yeah, i'm just a cold heartless conservative that wants people to suffer. that's the driving force behind conservativism. we're evil and want to give people the shaft.

also, you kind of skirted around the facts in my last post. the wealthiest half of america already pays for all of the programs that benefit the poor. why is that not enough, and how much IS enough?

OFFLINE

I call bullshit on that.
You have to be dirt ass poor to get any kind of help in my state and most other states besides California.  You act as if I am feeling entitled to something that isn't mine.  I want nothing from the wealthy.  I was diagnosed with PTSD and on social security for it.  I got off of it asap but could still be drawing it today.  I don't like depending on anyone but myself especially not the government.
People who have more are able to give more and I do think that should be the case.  When you have money you have something to build on when you have nothing it's VERY difficult to build upon your dreams.  You and I disagree heartily on this issue.  
If a rich person loses $1,000, he might be pissed but if an individual; that lives paycheck to paycheck loses that much they are likely to be on the streets and have no food.  That, to me, is the reason why we should be able to count on the richest of us all to be willing to give back to the country that has allowed them to obtain so much.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Lelania Bailey:
I call bullshit on that.
You have to be dirt ass poor to get any kind of help in my state and most other states besides California.  You act as if I am feeling entitled to something that isn't mine.  I want nothing from the wealthy.  I was diagnosed with PTSD and on social security for it.  I got off of it asap but could still be drawing it today.  I don't like depending on anyone but myself especially not the government.
People who have more are able to give more and I do think that should be the case.  When you have money you have something to build on when you have nothing it's VERY difficult to build upon your dreams.  You and I disagree heartily on this issue.  
If a rich person loses $1,000, he might be pissed but if an individual; that lives paycheck to paycheck loses that much they are likely to be on the streets and have no food.  That, to me, is the reason why we should be able to count on the richest of us all to be willing to give back to the country that has allowed them to obtain so much.

we don't disagree at all. i agree with what you just said, it's just that the rich ARE paying the most. and i don't understand why that's not enough to most people on the left.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

I think with the right leadership in Congress, the economy would be stimulated.  Taxes could be lowered, regulation could be reduced or eliminated and jobs would return to our country.  Employment could go back up and thus, more people could find themselves making enough money to pay their fair share of taxes.

Because lowering taxes and reducing regulation worked so well in the run-up to 2008?

well it did for almost a decade. in fact, it was the regulations that mandated bad loans to lower income families that brought the housing market down.

And while the economy was rolling along, what happened to the national debt?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

I think with the right leadership in Congress, the economy would be stimulated.  Taxes could be lowered, regulation could be reduced or eliminated and jobs would return to our country.  Employment could go back up and thus, more people could find themselves making enough money to pay their fair share of taxes.

Because lowering taxes and reducing regulation worked so well in the run-up to 2008?

well it did for almost a decade. in fact, it was the regulations that mandated bad loans to lower income families that brought the housing market down.

And while the economy was rolling along, what happened to the national debt?

the same thing that happened to government spending over the past 4 decades. it kept ballooning with each additional budget.

OFFLINE

Look, forget George Bush.  Bush was handcuffed (imo) by NAFTA.  Though he, Clinton and George Sr thought it was a good idea, fact is that while NAFTA meant the U.S. total civilian employment may have grown by almost 15 million in between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing job only increased by 476,000 in the same time period. (ie...a lot of those jobs were slinging burgers at Mickey D's).  Furthermore from 1994 to 2007, net manufacturing employment has declined by 3,654,000, and during this period several other free trade agreements have been concluded or expanded.

NAFTA is one of the worst policies our nation has ever implemented.  Blame Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr for this monstrosity.

Most of you aren't old enough to really remember Ronald Reagan (a true conservative Republican).

In 1979 our economy was horrible. I remember waiting in gas lines.  During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).  Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%.

Reagan implemented policies based on supply-side economics and advocated a philosophy, seeking to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts.  Reagan promoted the proposed tax cuts as potentially stimulating the economy enough to expand the tax base, offsetting the revenue loss due to reduced rates of taxation.

During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986, another bipartisan effort championed by Reagan, reduced the top rate further to 28%.

The result was that the GDP recovered strongly after the early 1980s recession ended in 1982, and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.85% per year.  Unemployment peaked at 10.8% monthly rate in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression.

This is what we need.  

Again, bottom line is that if people have money in their pockets, they spend it.  If (real) jobs are available, unemployment is down and people spend money.  They also give to charity.  

Taxing people to dole it out to others will never help the economy.  Jobs will always dry up and more people will have to go on unemployment, which draws its money from taxes.  Its a vicious circle.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Lelania Bailey:
I call bullshit on that.
You have to be dirt ass poor to get any kind of help in my state and most other states besides California.  You act as if I am feeling entitled to something that isn't mine.  I want nothing from the wealthy.  I was diagnosed with PTSD and on social security for it.  I got off of it asap but could still be drawing it today.  I don't like depending on anyone but myself especially not the government.
People who have more are able to give more and I do think that should be the case.  When you have money you have something to build on when you have nothing it's VERY difficult to build upon your dreams.  You and I disagree heartily on this issue.  
If a rich person loses $1,000, he might be pissed but if an individual; that lives paycheck to paycheck loses that much they are likely to be on the streets and have no food.  That, to me, is the reason why we should be able to count on the richest of us all to be willing to give back to the country that has allowed them to obtain so much.

I'm actually with ya on much of this.  People with medical issues need help. Thats a fact.  I'm in a similar boat myself. So I think programs should be out there to help folks with issues that prevent them from being able to be employed.

But we both know (or should know) there are many who cheat.  I personally know of 2 individuals who have 2 or more addresses and get welfare checks sent to both addresses!  Those folks ought to be jailed and if I could prove it, I'd turn em in.

I also think that a lot of folks who are on welfare or food stamps would rather not be on them.  Frankly, its embarrassing to pay for groceries with food stamps, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do, right?  So imo, if those folks could actually get decent jobs...they'd take em and stop with the welfare.  That would reduce the stress on the funds and they could more easily go to folks who actually need them (like folks with medical issues).

Least it should help.  We need jobs...good reliable jobs too.  Not just temp jobs that pay minimum wage that keeps people below the poverty level.