LJWorld.com

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Perhaps Senator Roberts is mindful of the fact, which this letter writer either doesn't know or disregards out of his vitriolic hatred for Republicans, that the top 10% of U.S.wage earners pay over two-thirds of all income taxes collected, that the top 1% pay more than the bottom 50% combined, and that the bottom 50% pays less than 5% of all income taxes collected. The letter writer might want to reflect on the fact that the freedom he enjoys to write his letter was earned by brave and heroic patriots whose revolt against English tyranny was fueled in large part by outrage over confiscatory taxation.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

One further comment: Given the letter writer's expressed views, it's interesting to note that he describes Senator Roberts' approach as “bipartisan.”

paavopetie (Anonymous) says…

cato, I believe that was sarcasm. It must be hard to pick up because you're so busy doing math in your head.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Were the words “red-baiting,” “fear-mongering,” and “greedy” sarcastic also?

duplenty (Anonymous) says…

“Were the words “red-baiting,” “fear-mongering,” and “greedy” sarcastic also?”

Um, no? I would think that even you can see that these words accurately describe current (and continuing) GOP tactics….

Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…

all part of the vast right wing conspiracy… right duplenty?

duplenty (Anonymous) says…

Bowhunter, do I really have to post the (what, hundreds?) of quotes by conservatives that prove the point?

Bush's entire domestic policy since 2004 has been predicated on fear.

Speakout (Anonymous) says…

No Duplenty, it was his policy from 2001 when he decided to bomb Afghanistan but not seek out the culprit who was the mastermind of the events on 9/11. If he caught Bin Lauden, then the fear mongering would have to stop and that isn't part of the plan. I think McCain buys into that also. Pat Roberts is a loser no matter what party he belongs to and yes the last shriek of a senator is his partiotism. IF he were a true patriot, he would support them in the GI Bill before congress and thoughout his senatorialship. He hasn't, neither has Brownback.

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“top 10% of U.S.wage earners pay over two-thirds of all income taxes collected, that the top 1% pay more than the bottom 50% combined”

As well they should. If the top 1% paid 50% of their yearly earnings in taxes, I suspect they would still be in the top 1%. Poor them!

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

I loves the smell of hyperbole in the morning.

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

How would you like it if the government decided to take 50% of your annual income in taxes acoupstick?

Curtiss (Anonymous) says…

Cato complains: “the top 10% of U.S.wage earners pay over two-thirds of all income taxes”

Well, if the top ten percent make over three quarters of the money, they're getting off cheap, aren't they?

As Warren Buffett says, there's something wrong when he pays a lower tax rate than his housekeeper.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Curtiss, do you know why the top 10% of earned income recipients are in that category? Do you have any idea what regular stress and responsibility-filled 70+ hourly workweeks are like? Have you ever experienced one such week as the owner of a business, or in a managerial capacity? Do you think that this country could simply run itself if such people did not exist? Have you ever employed people and by so doing enabled them to feed, house, and clothe their families? What right does any free government have to tax those who are the most productive on such a disproportionate basis? If you had the talent to be one in the top 10%, you might understand. As for Warren Buffett, he happens to have just surpassed Bill Gates as the richest man in the world, and despite his unquestioned talents as an investor has long ago ceased to be representative of the many Americans who are in the trenches every day making this country run, and pay way more than the lion's share of the taxes as the result of the now-embedded concept of “progressive” taxation.

Pleiku (Anonymous) says…

Cato…bravo

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

cato….BS

Pleiku (Anonymous) says…

I am somewhat disappointed, however, that little of the discussion talked about the orignial point of Mr. Roberts letter. That being support of increasing veterans benefits. I would hope that would be the important issue, not who is using the veteran to their personal benefit. Sadly, the flag and those who have served it, are far too often used for politcal gain from those that have never served.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

I didn't realize all of the top 1% worked 70 hour work weeks and were the “most productive” in our society.

Of course, I also had never realized all of the people hit by the inheritance tax were farmers. cato and the like certainly edumacated me on that one.

I think it is cato who would be surprised at the work habits of the majority of the top 1%, much as cato would apparently be surprised at the work habits of the majority of the remaining 99%.

My guess is cato would find a higher percentage of the 99% working 70 hour work weeks than cato would find in the blessed 1%. My guess he would also find a higher percentage of that 99% would qualify as “productive” in its measurable form as productivity than cato would find in the blessed 1%.

As for Sen. Roberts and his usage of the flag, that's a classic hallmark of fascism, which is why it is a favorite tactic of the Republican right in this country.

Pleiku (Anonymous) says…

dirk, I agree that many in the top 1% have not earned their wealth but rather received it through inheritence. However for those that do bust their butts to “make it” it does seem a bit punitive to take it from them simply because they have it. I would think that sooner or later those that have the drive to succeed will simply stop trying. Where will the revenue come from if that happens? Personally I applaud those that succeed. Of course I don't always agree with the methods, but without the entrepeneurs who would employ the rest of us? Sadly, I normally live by the second part of your user name….”leisure”.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

The statistics I cited are, as I stated, for people with earned incomes. They have nothing to do with people who ought to be working but choose not to because of inherited wealth - for whom most of us have little, if any, respect. Actually, in large part because of income and estate taxation, the relative number of such people is considerably less than, say, 100 years ago - it's rare to find anyone nowadays who doesn't need to work to support a family or, if sufficiently wealthy through inheritance, is able-bodied and chooses not to work. Some of the hardest working people I know have some level of inherited wealth, but to their credit have realized that one cannot have self-respect if one does not work - which, as was emphasized repeatedly by former President Clinton, has been far and away the major problem with LBJ's “Great Society” welfare programs.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

“Earned income” does not mean “has a job.”

But at least you admit you actually believe the top 10% are the “hardest workers.” Sorry, I see you actually referenced a much large number.

Still, I guess that explains why you're such a bum. What Clinton used to talk about was making jobs available to those who otherwise have no choice but to turn to welfare. Create jobs and they will leave the welfare rolls.

That is quite the opposite of what I would wager your program would be. I'm guessing it involves the consumption of cake, among other niceties.

Is it punitive for a top earners to pay higher rate? Hard to say… is it punitive for the lowest earners to pay the same sales tax?

In both cases, only if it comes as some sort of surprise, which it most certainly should not.

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“What right does any free government have to tax those who are the most productive on such a disproportionate basis?”

Wealth does not equal productivity, period. That being said, I think we should all pay the same tax (with exception of the extremely poor, ever been to Appalachia?), with no way around it, no 'shelters', just no bs period. This alone would make the IRS much, much more efficient. It's the stupidly complex tax system we live under. I would hate to try to figure out how much money we spend in taxes just trying to figure out who owes what taxes?!?!??! Simplify, simplify, simpify, PLEASE!!!

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Dirk and Defender, I agree that (a) sales taxes are regressive and in certain cases harmfully so, and (b) the flat tax is an idea whose time has come. It remains my belief that people outside of government who are responsible for creating and maintaining jobs in the private sector should not be penalized by the government for their success.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Sure, nothing regressive about the flat tax.

The people outside of government who are responsible for creating and maintaining jobs in the private sector, if you go back through the history of this country since Teddy Roosevelt, have never created as many jobs as they have when their tax rates have been the highest.

The “biggest tax increase in our history” in 1991 and again in 1993 created a high tax rate for these angels of industry. It also created the longest period of sustained job growth in history.

Your theories don't work. The are pleasant sounding dalliances.

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“How would you like it if the government decided to take 50% of your annual income in taxes acoupstick?”

That's my point, exactly. Last I heard the top 1% AGI in this country was around $380,000/year. If I earned that and was taxed at a rate of 50% (15% higher than current rate) I would still bring home $190,000. That's almost 6 times my current income. If I were to be taxed at a rate of 50% currently, I would bring home around $16K, and we'd all be paying for the food stamps and Medicaid for me and my family.

Wealth redistribution is the point of government.