Quote:
Originally Posted by Troianii
I don't think that you're getting the point. I'm say that if the rich ever really controlled Washington McCain-Feingold would never have passed into law - and it wouldn't have passed into law if people understood Constitutional rights.
|
Oh, make no mistake. The rich control Washington just as assuredly as you control your dog. But even the tamest dog has occasion to bite.
In looking at the web site I linked above, I discovered a fascinating study on power in the US, who has it, and who controlls it. Spend an evening perusing Dr. Domhoff's web site. It makes you look at corporate-government structure a bit differently. It isn't easy reading, but it is fascinating.
Cal, I think the point I'm trying to make, and I'm sure you'll disagree, is that it really doesn't make any difference how much the very wealthy pay in taxes. It doesn't reduce their standing in the purchasing power pecking order one bit. They are still going to have far more income than 90% of the rest of Americans. In fact, the income of the top 10% outstrips the income of the bottom
60%. Consider: 98% of American households make LESS than $250,000 annually (2005 data). Out of 114,384,000 US households, 112,363,000 made less than $250,000 in 2005. That figure represents a very well-off household, but I wouldn't consider them to be wealthy (at least not by the models we've all come to understand). Someone making $552K annually makes as much in one month as the median US household's annual income. Paying more in taxes isn't going to hurt them one bit. I
will stipulate that spending has to be brought under control before
anyone's taxes are raised. But the notion that the rich are hurt by higher taxes is preposterous to someone that has to worry about just making ends meet on the rent, food and utilities every month. So someone has to buy a 40-foot cabin cruiser instead of the 60-footer they want.
Quote:
|
Raising taxes on people does have economic repercussions, especially for small business's. 5% higher taxes can be the difference in a small business going bust or never starting up, or it flourishing.
|
That's why you take the breaks away from Exxon and Wal-Mart (and their ridiculously wealthy CEOs), and put them where they will get the most bang for the buck - in breaks to small businesses and their owners.
Here's a novel tax idea:
How about if the government raised taxes 5%, but then mandated that 50% of your tax liability was to be distributed to whatever educational or charitable organizations you choose? In return, the Fed wold no longer be in the education business except to offer aid for college (which should be universal anyway). In return, there would be no more Federal welfare, except to subsidize health benefits for those absolutely unable to afford their own. The 50% of tax dollars remitted to our fat uncle Sam would go for day-to-day operation of the government, infrastructure, and defense. Let the free market determine which solutions work the best and give much more steering responsibility back to the states and localities where the rubber meets the road.
And about all these earmarks...I have no problem visiting the CitiCorp Museum of the Anvil...if it's a project important enough to earmark
OUR money for, it's important enough for a corporation to pony up the largesse for the tax write-off.
Linear Mode
