Diegetics

Boy this sure got a lot of attention in the news... oh wait, it didn't get any! Hmmmmm.

Dear Mr. President

We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.

We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.




You Should Know
Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

44% of Congress people are millionaires

The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent

Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as schedule would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years

I wonder why these people just don't give over their money voluntarily.

And implicit in their message is that there is something wrong with debt, when we know from this administration there is nothing wrong with debt.

Why isn't that letter attached to a large monetary gift addressed to the IRS? It sounds like they have found their favorite charity.

Ct and MP show up to parrot what they've been told.

As if the contents/distribution of the letter were not a parroting.

Well you brought up parroting, so I thought that was in the discussion. I have no problem with parroting, it makes up some 90-95% of all political dialogue, but it's just a strange point to take issue with when it always fights to a draw.

So the comments to this so far are that these people should voluntarily give more money to the IRS.

This apparently addresses the US budget deficit and income tax policy in one fell swoop! Or does it?

What in fact do these comments mean?

I would say that the letter, and the concepts behind it, are inadequate and fraught with hangups.

1) Reversing the Bush tax cuts would simply be a small portion of the deficit. BTW, any forecast beyond 3-4 years isn't worth anything, 3-4 years ago no one was forecasting where we are now vis tax revenues. The level of tax increase that would actually close the deficit to zero or close thereto in the short term would be much higher than what we're discussing. So if we are talking about meaningful deficit reduction through taxation instead of shibboleth ping pong then they should be talking about tax increases that would actually do something. I think there is a reason that they don't.

With the fluid nature of politics these days tax increases today are as likely to be spent by a new congress tomorrow as anything.

2) Tax increases to reduce debt are meaningless if the "new" revenue ends up just being spent on top of previous spending. Most recent case in point John Kerry campaigned to reverse the Bshtxcuts and then planned to spend the revenue 3-4 times, IIRC. So the issue is increasing revenue is useless in controlling debt if spending discipline is not firmly established first.

3) There is a real issue with these lear jet liberals whining, "please raise my taxes, I desperately want to pitch in but I just can't unless you raise my taxes" when if they feel that way they can pull a Ted Turner/UN and go ahead and endow money to the gov't. Further, as we saw during the Obama staff confirmations, it's hard to actually find a liberal Democrat who is paid up on their taxes. So the superior civic morality tone in this sort of thing is bankrupt and insulting from the starting line.

So now the complaint is that the proposition won't work, so it's better to do nothing.

No, the prescription proposed doesn't cure anything. The "doing something" has to come from spending first. If the gov't can demonstrate fiscal restraint first, you can raise taxes on me all day long. But not one cent until then.

G_d bless them.

Valid points about controlling spending but I still say

G_d bless them.

Reminds me a little of how rich metics would donate warships to Athens to get citizenship.

Speaking as one of the small folk, I don't mind it when the rich get richer and the rest of us have reasonably good jobs.

My mood sours when some of the rich screw things for the rest of us blowing up the market with toxic asset securities, make their own rules (robo-signing), keep getting richer (Wall Street and Govt. salaries continue to rise astonishingly) while the rest of us get poorer, and by playing games with the currency at taxpayer expense (Fed loans them money at 0% which is then loaned to the Treasury at interest) instead of trying to get the economy back on its feet.

I prefer the rich who act to keep our society functioning by putting the illusion called money to good work providing jobs.

But the govt. is in a financial mess.

Borrow and spend (Repub & Dem) is even more insane than Tax & Spend (Dem)

So this help is appreciated.

At least these few seem to be willing to put their money where their mouths are at first blush.

No kidding, really?

Enlighten me, Milo, or simply ask that I no longer clutter your threads. I will endeavour to be less obtuse in the future.

The notion that the Mr. Perfect's of the world got rich by their own pluck and ingenuity is complete bullshit. Anyone who gets wealthy does it by gaming the system. So it's only fair that they pay a premium for the largesse bestowed upon them by loopholes in the system.

Or we could just let the money keep trickling to China, as pretty much all of the nominally wealthy members of the ATOL forum were promising to do with their wealth when the economy went down.