• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

I thought we were promised Infrastructure Week.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

We still have time to mess this up!

All your base are belong to Tunch.

What fresh hell is this?

I’m only here for the duck photos.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

How has Obama failed you today?

Let there be snark.

The willow is too close to the house.

Nevertheless, she persisted.

This is how realignments happen…

Tick tock motherfuckers! Tick fucking tock!

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

… makes me wish i had hoarded more linguine

Shelter in place is one thing. Shelter in pants is quite another.

Good luck with your asparagus.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Mobile Menu

  • Look Forward & Back
  • Balloon Juice 2021 Pet Calendar
  • Site Feedback
  • All 2020 Fundraising
  • I Voted!
  • Take Action: Things We Can Do
  • Team Claire, and Family
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • BJ PayPal Donations
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Nature & Respite
  • Information As Power
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • On The Road
  • Garden Chats
  • Nature & Respite
  • Look Forward & Back
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / C’Mon Democrats

C’Mon Democrats

by John Cole|  May 22, 20038:03 am| 19 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics

Facebook0Tweet0Email0

Alright Democrats, you are dropping the ball. Yesterday, I asked you to tell me what level of taxation is enough for you to call off the nasty rhetoric. We only had a few responses. So, we will try this one more time:

At what level of taxation will Democrats agree the rich are no longer greedy? Answers should be a percentage, rather than “when the budget is balanced and our needs are met.” Should a person making a million dollars be forced to give 5 out of every 10 dollars he/she earns to federal, state, and local government?

6 out of 10? When will you stop calling them greedy- just give me a number, please.

Once you have figured out what percentage of their income is enough to stop calling them greedy, then tell me what level of taxation would just be downright unfair and immoral. I am curious.

Facebook0Tweet0Email0
Previous Post: « The War on Your Neighbors
Next Post: Tell Em Dean »

Reader Interactions

19Comments

  1. 1.

    Tiger

    May 22, 2003 at 8:39 am

    I am not rich and my tax burden is killing me. I say get rid of the Income Tax, enact a National Sales Tax, limited to 20%, by Constitutional Amendment (which can or cannot include the repeal of the Constitutional Amendment authorizing the Income Tax.)

  2. 2.

    barney gumble

    May 22, 2003 at 10:02 am

    My uninformed opinion, after the Reagan era and the Clinton tax increase of 1993, is that the Laffer curve peaks around 33%.

    As far as calling off the crazy rhetoric, there is no number. It’s a perception of being screwed, being taken advantage of, etc. I got in a fight (when I was a teenager) over $20.

  3. 3.

    JKC

    May 22, 2003 at 10:08 am

    John- forgive the double post. I don’t know the answer to your question. As I said on another thread, a tax rate of greater than 40 to 50% strikes me as a screamingly bad idea. I’m fairly well off: I can afford to pay more in taxes than the gal working in the check-out line in the local Wal-Mart.

    Let me repost a question and turn it around for everyone reading here: What are YOU willing to give up for lower taxes? I don’t want to hear from well-off young, healthy twenty- or thirty-something members of the Federalist Society spouting off about doing away with Medicaid or Social Security. What ox of YOURS are you willing to see gored?

    As I said before, I suspect your answers will be enlightening…

  4. 4.

    John Cole

    May 22, 2003 at 10:11 am

    JKC- Let’s make that a question for tomorrow rather then let the thread get jacked. I will pose that to readers tomorrow morning. For tofay, let’s stay focussed on what percentage of income paid in taxes (federal, state, and local, as well as sales and hidden taxes), crosses the line.

    Again, we will ask that tomorrow.

  5. 5.

    JKC

    May 22, 2003 at 10:32 am

    Fair enough, John. I’ll stick with the answer above, with the caveat that it’s an uneducated guess. God knows I’d love to pay fewer taxes; I just feel that the trade-off (adequate defense and public services) are worthwhile.

    BTW, I don’t think the “rich” are greedy per se: that’s an unfair characterization of a lot of people who worked damned hard for what they have.

  6. 6.

    Mason

    May 22, 2003 at 11:02 am

    Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.

    That is a huge problem and *always* a consequence of wanting “the government” to solve social ills.

  7. 7.

    Skeejin

    May 22, 2003 at 11:39 am

    You frame it this way, Kevin frames it that way.

    It’s all so confusing! :-)

  8. 8.

    Skeejin

    May 22, 2003 at 11:40 am

    Oops. I guess you don’t have html in the comments. Sorry… Here’s the link I meant to post…

    http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001313.html

  9. 9.

    RHJunkior

    May 22, 2003 at 1:00 pm

    I’m no Democrat, but I’ll venture this.

    I agree with Ray Stevens: “If ten percent is good enough for Jesus, it oughta be enough for Uncle Sam.”

    And as to “what are you willing to give up”—

    1)When taxes are reduced, government revenue goes up.

    2)Something like 90 cents out of every dollar in a government social program goes to paying the bureaucracy. Where, oh where, shall we trim the fat?

    3)We could eliminate the income tax entirely… *without* replacing it with another confiscatory program. The income tax only produces 1/3 of all government revenue. It was not all that long ago the government managed to get by *somehow* on 1/3 less than it spends now.

    At the very least, we could chop a percentage off the budget of everything across the board— say 10 to 15 percent— and tell the administrators to get off their fat butts and make it fit. Option? Choose between making your new budget work, or browsing the “help wanted” ads for a new job next year.
    The only exceptions to this across-the-board cutshould be national defense and law enforcement…. just about the only two legitimate jobs government has.

  10. 10.

    Ricky

    May 22, 2003 at 1:11 pm

    I guess your idea is good for starting a topic at Drum’s site, but not good enough for a link, eh? C’mon, Kevin!

  11. 11.

    Randolph Fritz

    May 22, 2003 at 1:14 pm

    Ah, didn’t like the answer you got…

    But lefties don’t usually measure things that way.

    In my view, greed is not measured by the tax rate that people are willing to accept. Greed is desire without limit, that will accept no satisfaction. For the truly greedy, any tax is too much, and the truly greedy will see others die rather than contribute even a small portion of their wealth. It’s that, in my view, that defines greed. Not wealth. Not the desire to accumulate wealth or preserve it. But the setting of personal wealth above all else.

    Last time I looked, economists believe that the Laffer curve peaks at around 70%. I would resent a tax rate that high, I can tell you, but of course as Buffet points out, the rate isn’t that high; only part of income is taxed at the top tax-table rate.

    Or does the expertise of successful capitalists only count if they are Republicans?

    Some history may be perhaps clarify my concerns here. During World War II, the national debt as a percentage of annual GNP rose to 100%–the highest, I believe, that ratio has ever been. Would the decision to continue that war best have made on cost alone?

    And as a leftie, I am more interested in paying for properous peace than war, even (apparently) successful war.

  12. 12.

    bg

    May 22, 2003 at 1:20 pm

    40%.
    maybe 35%

    that’s enough. i’m a lib.

  13. 13.

    ruprecht

    May 22, 2003 at 1:30 pm

    2)Something like 90 cents out of every dollar in a government social program goes to paying the bureaucracy. Where, oh where, shall we trim the fat? – RHJunkior

    The Feds cannot even account for $1 of every $4 they collect so either your stat is wrong or things are really, really bad.

  14. 14.

    John Yuda

    May 22, 2003 at 2:10 pm

    It irritates the hell out of me when people who don’t work for the government think they understand how much overhead there is and/or how much they should be.

    Discussions to that effect also never consider the number of people employed by the government. Flooding the labor market with unemployed isn’t particularly good for anybody, except maybe anti-labor wingnuts.

  15. 15.

    Fooey

    May 22, 2003 at 2:19 pm

    Do you want a percentage of taxable income or a percentage of newly-available personal wealth?

    The wealthy aren’t making all of their money through plain old W-2 income, while most Average Joes are. So, to bitch about the fact that Warren Buffett pays z% on his W-2 income ignores the fact that he’s paying something much less on his dividend and capital gains incomes.

  16. 16.

    John Yuda

    May 22, 2003 at 2:43 pm

    Of course, discussing “fair” taxation levels isn’t particularly worthwhile until we first consider whether or not top-tier compensation levels are fair.

    Do most CEOs earn the insane salaries they pull in? Not on your life.

    So, for people like… I dunno.. Michael Eisner, I think 90% taxation is perfectly acceptable. After all, that would still leave him with several million dollars a year to do with as he pleases. How much does the man need?

  17. 17.

    Randolph Fritz

    May 22, 2003 at 2:59 pm

    L’esprit d’escalier spoke up, and added a few thoughts.

    If there could be a plan which would lower everyone’s taxes and provide reasonable domestic and international policy, I would be for it–I think most of us would be. That was, of course, what the Reagan administration promised us, and it’s been what tax-cutters have promised us ever since. We have learned that the policies we are able to agree on cost more than the taxes the current admistration is willing to levy at the national level, and more than most states were willing to levy during the past decade. The problems were obvious very early on, when Stockman published *The Triumph of Politics*.

    So why have the policies continued? They are justified by lies, but why keep lying? The basic answer seems to be that these policies accelerate, perhaps even entirely cause, the vast increase in wealth of the richest. These economic policies and the rhetoric that justifies them are, in other words, a vast scam; “voodoo economics.”

    There’s very few econmists who believe that the current federal tax proposals are going to do what is claimed for them. What the proposals are expected to do is (1) continue to increase the wealth of the very wealthy and, (2) in conjunction with increased government spending and borrowing, promote dramatic inflation, which will continue the impoverishment of people who cannot afford the riskier investments that will keep up with inflation.

    There is very little doubt that the basic motivation at work here is greed; protestations of ethics and freedom ring hollow when the main result of the policies is the enormous increase of the wealth of a few at the expense of the vast majority.

    And so there is you answer; it’s not particular tax rates that makes the left call the rich greedy (and it isn’t only the rich) it’s the support of policies that expand the wealth of the richest while impoverishing almost everyone else.

    If taxes were lowered to some rate acceptable to the right, but policies continued this unhappy outcome, the left would continue to call the rich “greedy.” Conversely, if the wealthy promoted policies which lowered taxes and improved the lot of the rest of us as well–and if you tell me that is what current policy will do I will snicker muchly, there is not even a fig-leaf of economic justification left for them–I, at least, would call that “generosity.”

    And I must, I am sorry, leave this discussion; I have already spent more time on it than I now think wise.

  18. 18.

    Mason

    May 22, 2003 at 11:49 pm

    John Yuda, the government does not exist to provide jobs or to ensure that public sector employees will remain in their jobs until the end of days.

    Yuda, how much do YOU need? I think you can get by on $10k a year to do with as you please.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Matthew Yglesias says:
    May 22, 2003 at 2:08 pm

    Where Does It Stop?

    John Cole has a questions:At what level of taxation will Democrats agree the rich are no longer greedy? Answers should be a percentage, rather than “when the budget is balanced and our needs are met.” Should a person making a…

Primary Sidebar

Biden-Harris Inauguration

Biden-Harris Inauguration Website

We The People Concert (8 pm 1/17)
Donate $5 to watch

Official events – watch at top link

Major’s Indoguration Party (now)

Do Something!

Call Your Senators & Representatives
Directory of US Senators
Directory of US Representatives
Letter to Elected Officials – Albatrossity
Letter to Elected Officials – Martin

I Got the Shot!

🎈Ways to Support Our Site

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal
Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice ⬇  

Recent Comments

  • hueyplong on One More Day Under the Gun (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:36pm)
  • Matt McIrvin on Incompetence Is Its Own Reward (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:36pm)
  • Brachiator on Incompetence Is Its Own Reward (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:36pm)
  • 🐾BillinGlendaleCA on One More Day Under the Gun (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:36pm)
  • mrmoshpotato on Incompetence Is Its Own Reward (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:36pm)

Team Claire, and Family

Help for David’s Niece Claire
Claire Updates
Claire update for the holidays 12/23

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year

Featuring

John Cole
Silverman on Security
COVID-19 Coronavirus
Medium Cool with BGinCHI
Information Is Power

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Submit Photos to On the Road
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Meetups: Proof of Life
2021 Pets of Balloon Juice Calendar

Culture: Books, Film, TV, Music, Games, Podcasts

Noir: Favorites in Film, Books, TV
Book Recommendations & Indy Recs
Mystery Recommendations
Medium Cool: What If (Books & Films)
Netflix Favorites
Amazon Prime Favorites
Netflix Suggestions in July
Fun Music Thread
Longmire & Netflix Suggestions
Medium Cool: Places!
Medium Cool: Games!
Medium Cool: Watch or Read Again

Twitter

John Cole’s Twitter

[custom-twitter-feeds]

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!