At the top of Meet the Press yesterday (9/25/11), NBC anchor David Gregory announced one of the topics to come:
Is the president’s plan basic fairness or class warfare?
As with too many other media debates, an absurd proposition—that returning tax rates for certain wealthy people to levels seen in the 1980s and 1990s is a declaration of war—is treated as one of the two possible answers to a question. Gregory manages to make things worse by getting the only answer on the show from billionaire New York mayor (and media tycoon) Michael Bloomberg:
GREGORY: Does that trouble you?
BLOOMBERG: It does trouble me. You can’t define what’s middle class, what is wealthy, what is poor. Every time you have a jump, people play games to get on one side or another. And I think it’s not fair to say that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share. They pay a much higher percentage of their income. They have a higher rate than people who make less. The Buffett thing is just theatrics. If Warren Buffett made his money from ordinary income rather than capital gains, his tax rate would be a lot higher than his secretary’s. And, in fact, a very small percentage of people in this country pay a big chunk on their taxes.
Bloomberg’s response is incoherent. Of course definitions of what makes someone “wealthy” or “poor” differ, but there’s no reason people can’t make such distinctions.
And Buffett’s tax burden has nothing to do with “theatrics.” Bloomberg says, “If Warren Buffett made his money from ordinary income rather than capital gains, his tax rate would be a lot higher.”
Well, yeah. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT of Buffett’s argument.
If Meet the Press is going to actually engage this discussion, it might make sense to invite some guests who know something about the issue—perhaps even a non-billionaire.
Isn’t it rather Orwellian to label Dear Misleader’s proposals either “basic fairness” or “class warfare”?
Taxing the upper class slightly more is akin to the courts on occasion randomly choosing a few poor defendants to receive just treatment, and the only class warfare this administration has engaged in has been directed at those same folks.
So I’d call these patently political maneuvers “theatrics” as well, only from a wholly obverse perspective.
Michael Bloomberg says: “You can’t define what’s middle class, what is wealthy, what is poor.”
Michael Bloomberg might disagree with that.
A headline from The New York Times, from 2007:
“Bloomberg Seeks New Way to Decide Who Is Poor”
And from his official biography on nyc.gov:
“Born on February 14, 1942 in Boston and raised in a middle class home in Medford, Massachusetts….”
In fact, Bloomberg once agreed with Warren Buffet on the subject of paying one’s fair share–so long as it was in the form of a charitable donation, and not taxation. He had this to say, in response to Buffet’s call for billionaires to give at least half of their fortunes to charity:
“The pledge ‘is a fantastic idea,’ Bloomberg said in a statement yesterday. ‘I am a big believer in giving it all away and have always said that the best financial planning ends with bouncing the check to the undertaker.'”
It’s just that, in the meantime, Michael Bloomberg isn’t sure if he fits the definition of “wealthy”–and so would like to err on the side of paying as little tax as possible.
Links follow:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/nyregion/30poverty.html
http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.e985cf5219821bc3f7393cd401c789a0/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-17/broad-commits-75-of-wealth-to-charity-takes-buffett-up-on-giving-pledge.html
After the rich pay their taxes, they are still rich. If they have a
really creative accountant they may even be richer, thanks to all
the deductions, loopholes, and legal tax dodges that are now
available to them. After the rest of us pay our taxes, we are
poor, or poorer. For many of the rest of us, paying taxes IS a
sacrifice. Asking the rich to pay a litle more is no sacrifice for
them. They will still be rich–or richer–after they pay a little
more. They would still be rich even if they paid a LOT more in
taxes.
It’s always good to see that the uber rich are happy to give to charity. That way they can really feel good about helping out. The problem is that all those charities that are actually helping people are so swamped with the needy that they can’t possibly keep up. Check it out and you’ll find that you can be helped with food about once a week and then for a limited time. You can geet help paying your light bill once. There is no long term care aside from government entitlements which are getting scarcer all the time.
Also, I’m also a little amazed over what many people call “middle class” or declare that they were poor. It’s all relative. I don’t think Bloomberg would get it if he went around visiting families of four who are living on $22,000 per year. Then again, he might. Would love to see him try. Surely, defining poor would have to include some field work.
If that won’t work, I suggest that we give an allowance to all the millionaires. One that matches the poverty level and require them to live on that amount for at least a year. I bet they would refuse even the idea of either suggestion.
Here is another definition of “poor”. A choice between food and taxes when your retirement income is $36,000 for a family of 4. No clothes, laundry, etc. Hmmm??? Oh yes, bank fees.
Can we please quit diddling around with a convoluted and corrupt tax system? Let’s demand, NOW, a flat-tax with NO loopholes.
Im with Jean above.But Jean it will never happen.Far less so on the left, than the right.A move like that would rob government of their most natural power.Good luck with that.
We live in a time where almost 50% pay nothing in Fed income taxes.Where the top 10% pay most all the taxes and our only idea is……….Get that 10% to pay more, because once upon a time they did?Why the left does not see that the only way out and up -is by allowing business to explode again, and wealth be recreated I do not know.It is either that or just beg the rich for more crumbs to support everyone.Even Bill Clinton himself said last week he would not raise taxes.And even if we do …it will accomplish little.
For the first time here, Jean, you’ve written something that makes no sense–a flat tax is inherently unfair; a graduated, progressive income tax is the best way to fund and run a democracy. The flat tax is a bad idea that’s been around for some time; not surprisingly, extremely wealthy greed-heads and witless idle-rich types like Malcolm “Stevie” Forbes think it’s a great idea. Forbes and his “class” would realize a massive tax break, and revenues would drop precipitously–if you think the revenue crisis is bad now, imagine a crisis a hundred times worse.
So: absolutely get rid of all loopholes, increase the amount of brackets, raise the capital gains taxes, and raise the top rate to around double what it is now. This will not happen of course–Wall Street and the banks own the government, and we will continue to see our government held hostage by the forces of implacable greed. The haters of Democracy are in the saddle, and it’s going to be difficult to throw them off.
Well, it’s not all supposed to be in italics at the end there . . . but you get the idea.
The ANTI-tax Tax Foundation, when comparing comprehensive household income (both market-based income and the net value of government transfer payments) to taxes paid for the period between 1991 to 2004 found:
The top quintile (81%-INCLUDING TOP 1%) earned 41.5% and paid 48.8% of total taxes.
The fourth quintile (61%-80) earned 21.0% and paid 22.4%.
The third quintile (41%-60%) earned 15.4% and paid 14.8%.
The second quintile (21%-40%) earned 12.2% and paid 9.6%.
The lowest quintile (Bottom 20%) earned 9.8% and paid 4.3% of total taxes.
Tim why is a flat tax bad?No more loopholes.Everything upfront.If a rich man buys anything… it is taxed.What could be more fair?Of course it does turn control over to the individual.Government looses its hold.Sounds great.The question is always fairness,not just the final till.
Ms. Countant: ” . . . the net value of government transfer payments”? Really now. I checked their website, and though they don’t actually say they’re “anti-tax,” any group that does research and claims this must be suspect. I watched a video (off of FOX, naturally) that presented Mr. Scott Hodge, the president of the “non-partisan” Tax Foundation making partisan comments, about “mom and pop” business owners making $250,000 a year (presumably in net income) all confused and upset by the new, confusing laws, who may be reluctant to “pay” for the new system, who, along with other investors, are “uncertain” about a lot of stuff! While the FOX news hounds and Mr. Hodge were somehow able to refrain from referring to the above-mentioned mom and pop as the magical, yet very confused and upset Job Creators, it was fairly easy to guess what the point was.
To the troll: Let’s say I make $25,000 per year. Just like the guy who makes $250,000 a year, I pay 20 percent of all my dough that I earned, or stole, or didn’t actually earn at all (think of, say, Nick Swisher of the Yankees or any highly paid player). That’s $5000.00 I pay at the flat rate. Tha’s a serious hit to me of my total income. The $250,000 guy pays $50,000 of his total–but he’s left with, free and clear, $200,000. I have to eat, house myself and family, buy and maintain a car, etc. just like $200,000 man does. Now let’s look at Swish. Swish made around (at least, I think) $10,000,000 this year. (Wow!) At the flat rate, he pays $2,000,000. He has, still, a king’s ransom left over, free and clear. Is a pattern starting to emerge for you yet? Probably not, but that’s not a surprise. The above simple example is one of the reasons a democracy uses a graduated income tax. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation–a heavy concept, to be sure, one being ignored and even ridiculed by the folks you admire. Greed and stupidity are in the saddle, and the low-tax, low-wage world so loved by the Republicons and Libertarians is accelerating towards us like a train piloted by malevolent trolls.
Tim lets take this slow….Are you actually saying that a “rich man”who makes 250K will pay 50 K while the man that makes 25K will pay 5?Sounds like the man who made more still has more.Say it aint so socialist Joe.
Of course in a flat tax on goods and services I would envision a huge jump in tax receipts to the treasury.The simple act of eliminating all the loopholes would be one factor.Especially for our wealthiest.The other would be bringing people onto the tax roles that now pay nothing.Corporations like GM would loose their no tax status because everything they buy would be…taxed up front.The left fears this fairness even more than the right for a simple reason.You loose control.If I make 10 million and decide this is a year I shall save every dime and drive a 82 chevy,than bingo……YOU LOOSE.If I spend 8 million you win big time.See how it works…my choice.Personal freedom.Government is forced more so to live within their means, because projecting known quantities becomes harder moving forward.Their are variations of this idea.The idea of leaving our tax code regulations in such complicated disarray to the point where many of Obamas Top guys have had tax problems(the say)do to confusion is ludicrous.
There is something not noted in this dsicussion: taxes on good syou buy. When those are added in the middle class pay a great deal more percentage tax than the millionaires! There should be sumptuary laws on goods that are mere bijoux.
Lawrence the rich pay the same taxes on goods and service.They do buy far more we can say with certainty..They also buy those huge ticket items.Of course as a percentage they pay less of their pay..They start with more!Do you want a rich man to pay 20 bucks for a hotdog while a poor man pays one?How else to even peoples results?Which is NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!
@TimN
Yes, The Tax Foundation is anti-tax and clearly partisan and yes they add “the net value of government transfer payments” to make the bottom quintile look like they make a bit more than they do, but even with that bit of misdirection they still find that the top quintile isn’t wildly overtaxed…
The “top quintile isn’t wildly overtaxed”That sounds so……….