AP Poll: Most favor taxing the rich to pay for health bill

Do you have a source for that statistic, JJ?

What middle class are you talking about?

Oh, that 14% of our population. Everyone else is impoverished, working class, or working poor.

I thought we all wanted a larger middle class?

I was talking about the figment of Obama's imagination that he feeds hope and change while slowly smothering them with doing nothing. Statistic for what? Doctors?

Money cannot buy everything. I don't want to be rich. What I see from the rich is greed, dishonesty, and just plain usery. I think it's sad. I'm unwilling to do what it takes to get rich, because while the top 1% got wealthy it hurt the rest of us.

It's sad that you only see greed from those that have more than you. Ignoring those that actually give....

Interesting Roseann_Schutz, but I would qualify that a bit about Buffet. I don't think he should pay higher taxes on a can of corn. I also don't think he should have to pay taxes to keep up the schools. But considering how much he's worth, in the event of a war he stands to lose PLENTY so he should be taxed to the gills for military costs including all the research and development at DARPA.

We only stand to lose our lives.

that would kill most of the domestic car makers and Apple computer.

That is a very tertiary result. I would assume that most people don't want cheap crap to begin with. They buy cheap crap because they don't have the money to buy nice things in the first place.

Flat tax isn't the answer for a TON of reasons. Do some research before you acquire that view.

care to share a few?

Well, sales tax is the worst of the "flat tax" ideas.

Because of the MPC it would be a regressive tax.

The tax amount would be calculated as:

Income * MPC * Tax rate = Tax revenue

Impoverished people, almost by definition have an MPC of 1 (they spend all they earn)

The super rich (forbes 400), no matter how much they spend, have a hard time pulling their MPC over 0.1.

So the effective tax rate is soooo much smaller for rich people because they save the majority of their income.

I tend to think that we should tax the rich more, and therefore I see this as an F- in policy.

Most flat tax proposals are still progressive. However, they would typically result in a HUGE decrease in revenue, unless the tax is REALLY high.

Finally, It puts the middle class at a disadvantage, which is what the majority of people don't want.

The good side is simplicity and saved accounting costs/personal time.

Unfortunately, almost no one wants simplicity. Even the staunchest of republicans believe in allowing you to write off mortgage interest. That means that a flat tax goes against what we use taxes for in this country: To provide incentive for certain behaviors that the public agrees are good for us.

Herein lies part of the problem Eden - that much money makes many greedy, it's never enough. It's not that those that don't have aren't working very hard trying to get ahead, it's that when you work for someone else, the corporation benefits from all of the little guys that keep the business going. Some corporations appreciate their employees and show it, but I'd say the majority could care less about anything but their bottom line. Just like some of the financial institutions did recently by laying off hundreds and still paying themselves huge bonuses.

I totally agree with you, Chique...I just know that if I had it, I'd give it. Speaking from Down Under, and of course on a much smaller scale, people who are working pay a Medicare Levy every year which funds the public health system. It works well, and enables the majority of Australians suffering hardship to be treated in any medical facility, plus free GP visits. Also top income marginal tax rate is 40% of annual income...oh, Medicare levy is 1.5%...

Many here go on and on about how they are oppressed by the rich, "the man", religion, and everything under the sun. For most of these people, their greatest oppressor is themselves. Their wealth, health, prosperity, happiness, and what not are more within their own control than they will ever realize as long as they are focused on what they consider are their external oppressors.

How about JK Rowling?
In Germany, a lot of superrich people have stated they would actually WANT to pay more taxes.

If they feel they want to be taxed more that's fine. They can contribute by "donating" their time and wealth personally to the government. They can write a check! Don't take the opinions of a few millionaires and force on the rest of the people with similar wealth.

Right again.

Those that feel entitled to money that belongs to the rich are ungrateful bastards who don't seem to realize that without the rich, the creators, the doers of the world - they would be living in a world without most of the modern conveniences they take for granted. It would basically be like the 18th century.

You consider a hard working blue collar worker who banks 32K a year a failure?

You consider a trust fund baby a success? What did they do to earn their money? Oh yeah, they didn't do anything.

CreditFigaro, your comment doesn't appear to be relevant to anything said by either kreddig or myself. What are you responding to?

The connection seems pretty obvious. One's level of wealth does not represent their value in the community. Reiterated, one's level of wealth does not measure their contribution to the greater good.

"One's level of wealth does not represent their value in the community. "

Agreed. I haven't suggested otherwise.

Therefore, earning 32K a year doesn't make you a failure. Being a billionaire certainly does make you greedy, though. I would consider that a moral failure.

"Being a billionaire certainly does make you greedy, though."

How exactly does being a billionaire make one greedy? You can provide any evidence you might have to support your claim.

Also, I've noticed much greed among the poor. Would you say that the greedy among the poor are that way because they used to be billionaires? Or perhaps you'd deny that anyone among the poor are greedy.

Greedy: excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit.

Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree.

Certainly, having wealth in the top 0.1% could be correlated with an excessive desire for it. Particularly since you can't earn that much wealth by accident and without extortion.

No. Trust babies are swine. And a person making 32K a year is not a failure, unless they hate their career and feel they are worth more in their field. But to tax others because that 32K doesn't provide enough for that person is ridiculous! If that 32K person wants better access to resources ect. then he or she should get into another field. Stop thinking that punishing rich people will fix things. Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money!

Why shouldn't all of our citizens be able to support a family and a regular lifestyle on an honest wage? Are you saying that there isn't enough to go around in the first place?

Very few people are advocating all socialism, or all capitalism, for that matter. Take some time to learn what those two terms mean. We live in a society that is a blend already, and the question is: What is the right blend?

What are you talking about? WHO has gotten away with WHAT?

The richest 1% of fuckers on wall street.

Ok, now someone is being more specific.

Now what is it that ALL of the richest 1% of "fuckers" on Wall Street have gotten away with?

@mojojujuanswer---"a completely parasitic and unjustified existence, from which they should be parted".

remanns, you're ignoring that the parasites are the ones who feel they are entitled to take money from the rich.

Do you feel entitled to take money from anybody who earns more than you? If your neighbor earns more money than you, do feel like you can rightfully take some of his money?

the rich didn't earn that money for goodness sake. Stop living in lalala land you crazy ass conservative. they are not that functionally important. ask this simple question why does a hedge fund ceo make insane amounts of money? but we as a country send our soldiers to die for less than a 100,000, or what about a fireman, or doctor, or even a teacher. All these professions that are much more valuable to society and their communities, but they make so little. WHY?
They make 400 times what the average worker makes. This is not because they are that valuable or deserve, or earned that amount, get that through your head. Just stomach it. It might be rough for you but I imagine you can handle it. the average worker make 50,000. In the 1970s it was only 40 times. That was still outrageous, but it was far more tolerable then. We shouldn't accept this kind of greedy. its destructive to our democracy. We can not allow our middle class to disappear. We should outlaw these practices and top these ceos down to their rightful level.

Preach it!

you really think this is an accurate assessment of the difference between class stratification in a capitalist nation and the ideal of a socialist model?

Of course there are various other stimuli that contribute to social stratification, but so many people seem to conveniently forget about people that abuse federal aid systems. Ignoring that some of people's problems are their own fault is just asinine.

You assume that those people who are rich earned their money. Most did not, most inherited their money. You also assume that everyone starts on a fair playing field. They do not. Some children have good parents, with the means to offer them an education, etc. Other children are born in the worst of circumstances.

I am always amazed that those who defend their religious belief with the most zeal are also the most reluctant to promote any sort of social justice.

Congratulations, unimatrix0, you have managed to inject religion into a discussion that has nothing to do with religion.

Uni - We need classes to survive. If you cannot accept this reality, you're just pissing in the wind. Just like some animals are born stronger than others, some people are born into better opportunity than others. What people like you are suggesting is that we give sea lions chain mail armor, because it isn't fair that great white sharks are so much bigger and stronger, and can eat them.

Mojo - Thank you! I thought it was just me that was seeing that!

Your example is rubbish.

Here is the reality of what we are dealing with.

One kid works hard in school and the other kid works hard in school.

One kid gets a 3.9 and gets $9.95 of allowance money the other kid gets a 3.5 and gets 5 cents.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging distribution of wealth based on how hard you work, I just wonder how a CEO works 500 times as hard as a hard working average American.

Seriously, they make $10,000 per hour, and the average person makes 20. WOW, I would love to see how they work 500 times as hard...

I guess they stack shelves in 1 second when it takes the average hard working american 8 minutes?

I guess they build an entire city in the time it takes a layman to build a house?

I guess they can cook enough food to feed an army in the time it takes a mcdonald's worker to fill one order.

I guess they can do a tax return for 500 people in 1 hour?

These people are unbelievable!!

Seriously, though. Human beings are between 3 and 8 feet tall. Their height can be different by a factor of 2-1 only in extreme cases. However, there are plenty of executives who get paid 500 to 1.

We are both fighting for the same ideal: Work hard earn more. However, your picture of the situation is askew from reality. You are off by huge magnitudes.

"I would love to see how they work 500 times as hard... "

I'm sorry you're so bitter to people who took advantage of opportunities laid before them.

I feel like this bears repeating:

"What people like you are suggesting is that we give sea lions chain mail armor, because it isn't fair that great white sharks are so much bigger and stronger, and can eat them."

Sure it's sad that there is poverty, but guess what? There's always going to income/wealth/health/gender/race/age inequality. Stop shitting in your britches about it and take care of yourself first.

Aha, so they had opportunities that the system granted them in the first place. Did they not?

They couldn't have done what they did in Kenya.

So the opportunity was given by the rule structure in the first place. The opportunities were provided by the community and their wealth hoarding was provided by the community. They didn't provide a good or service to get as rich as they did. They extorted people.

If you don't believe that, offer me ONE situation where extortion wasn't part of someone getting rich.

Therefore, the community can agree just the same that their wealth hoarding isn't good for the community because it isn't. The opportunity comes with paying taxes. Part of your income isn't your income anyway. It was never yours. It was always the community's.

If you don't think so, then don't use any public infrastructure or other people, and try to make a living. You won't go far.

Impressive side-stepping.

"What people like you are suggesting is that we give sea lions chain mail armor, because it isn't fair that great white sharks are so much bigger and stronger, and can eat them."

Address this.

Gladly.

We are talking economics, not animal planet.

Sea lions can't build suits of armor, but we sure can tax the shit out of the rich.

Survival of the fittest only applies to ideas in economics. If I was trying to defend that we should keep around floppy discs or 8 track tapes or any other outdated technology, then your analogy would work. However, we are talking about a community. We are all in this together. A rising tide raises all ships.

Your analogy breaks down almost instantly because it's a crap analogy and it isn't a relevant concept.

Your turn:

Offer me one example where an uber rich individual gets that way without the extortion of others.

Next, offer me one example of where someone gets uber rich without the use of other people or public infrastructure in any way.

If religion does not figure into discussions of basic fairness and justice than it belongs no where. Those who cling to their Jeebus need to recall the sermon on the mount. Be real - who would Jesus side with - the rich or the poor?

As for the silly yet faulty analogy concerning seals and sharks, we are neither. We have a moral imagination, and an ability to determine what is fair and what is just. To make such simple minded Darwinian appeals is intellectually naive and spiritually bankrupt.

I

"If religion does not figure into discussions of basic fairness and justice than it belongs no where. "

I sense you have unresolved religious issues.

We get it Ares, you're an egoist. Most however are not. At least not publicly.

"Offer me one example where an uber rich individual gets that way without the extortion of others."

That's impossible. No matter how sound an example I provide you with, you can easily make ambiguous references to exploitation of the working class. This is an inescapable consequence of capitalism, and one I refuse to even attempt to disprove. You're insane if you think individual credit has nothing to do with accumulation of wealth.

"Next, offer me one example of where someone gets uber rich without the use of other people or public infrastructure in any way."

Again, impossible. You're trying to trap me into submitting to neo-socialism, or worse, communism, which are both economic fallacies. If there was no employment inequality, there would be no incentive for people to go to college and work hard to become physicians or physicists. There would also be no janitors or police officers, because their pay is so abysmal. If we leveled the field so that everyone earns the same, or is at least taxed to the point that they might as well be earning the same, there would be no motivation for people to pursue cutting edge technologies and disciplines.

unimatrix - Stick to what you know: babbling about how religion causes all problems, everywhere, for all time. This is grown up talk and your little vendetta against religion, while adorable, is gruesomely tiresome to read over, and over, and over, and over again.

Oh goodness, I almost forgot: You're all so quick to dismiss my animal kingdom metaphor, but I seem to recall you guys losing your minds when there was a pair a queer penguins in some zoo.

“You're insane if you think individual credit has nothing to do with accumulation of wealth.”

This isn’t my point at all individual credit has a lot to do with it. Unfortunately, so does who your parents are.

My point is that personal credit doesn’t justify exorbitant accumulations of wealth.

"You're trying to trap me into submitting to neo-socialism..."

I can’t trap you if you have a logical argument. I am not supporting neo-socialism (France in the 1930's?) or communism. What I am supporting is the recognition what is and what is not an appropriate application of a socialism in our economy.

No one, here, is advocating "income equality." That's just silly. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are an extremist.

Moving on:

I find it nice that you actually agree with me that our system, indeed, requires someone to be extorted in order for another to become exorbitantly rich. You are OK with it, I guess. I think there is a better way. I don't think that making millions of dollars is what drives people to work hard. Certainly, an increase in income over time as a result of hard work does make for a good motivator. I don't think our system is bad, and i do like the impact that major corporations have had on our country in a lot of ways. However, I and many others, don't like the lack of fairness when it comes to distribution of wealth.

So, what is the solution?

The logical solution is to tax the rich at higher marginal rates since you cannot become rich without creating the problems that government is there to correct. It isn't a discriminatory tax. Any American who earns so much money gets taxed at the same marginal rate. You, me, or anyone else. It's fair.

This applies to healthcare. This wouldn't be a problem if people weren't getting rich on it. However, whenever you privatize what ought to be a social service there is tremendous social fallout which is what the government is trying to fix. The rich should be for nationalized healthcare because they will have to pay less money for government run rather than privately run.

There is plenty to talk about, here, you don't need to be demonizing those of us carrying on logical argument and coming to logical conclusions about legitimate problems. I'm glad to see you participating, at least.

"that government is there to correct."

I can agree with and even support most of what you're saying up to that point. That's just a fundamental difference in interpretation of the Constitution. I don't think that ensuring the general welfare means an elevated level of government involvement in our lives, but you obviously think that the government should play a more significant role. That's OK, but we just disagree on a fundamental level.

WHAT? Who would Jesus pick rich or poor? What the hell does that even mean?

He doesn't pick people base on wealth. Money isn't evil.

Some people.....

I wouldn't say CEOs work "500 times harder" than anyone. But their decisions, no matter how little in time it took them to contemplate and decide on them can make or break a company. He or she is responsible for many jobs and a lot of wealth in whatever field they are in. So a CEO's decisions are worth so much, no matter how "hard", a word that is subjective anyhow, he or she worked. If they make good decisions over time, consistently, then they should get rewards. Period.

kreddig - I really want to agree with you here, and that is ideally how publicly traded companies should operate, but in the last few years we have seen companies paying out seemingly unreasonable bonuses, so ideal constructs are becoming less prevalent, unfortunately.

Most people did not inherit their wealth. There is no study in your response to support that. I watch a special on MSNBC last month that profiled 5 millionaires and they all came from lower to middle class backgrounds. They inherited nothing. Unlike our children who will inherit $30,000 in debt. So in terms of the future, you will be ironically correct.

That's fine. MOST didn't inherit their wealth. Based on what you guys are talking about, trust fund babies didn't earn it either, a sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with.

So, the resulting solution is that we need a higher estate tax. Let people leave $1 million to their children (adjusted for inflation) and the rest is taxed at a 95% rate. Done. No more snobby babies with too much money and no sense of work ethic.

Yeah, I would agree that CEO's decisions matter a lot, and that they get paid a lot as a result. Then again, the fact of the matter is that they make mistakes all the time and still get paid these exorbitant amounts of money. They are just as much a man/woman as you or I. So what if they lead a company to the top of the fortune 500? If you guys really want to take a personal responsibility position, then doesn't that imply that the rest of the workers got it there, too? Why shouldn't they get to participate in the spoils of success?

I am supporting the creation of tax law that provides incentive to distribute the spoils of success in a flatter structure of 15-1 rather than 500-1. People are free to pay their executives tons of money, but they pay a heavy tax if they do.

We have to accept the fact that the lower and middle classes cannot possibly take on any more taxes. Just look at the foreclosure rate. The only people who can afford to chip in to address the health care crisis are the mega-rich. We're not talking about measly millionaire-rich. We're talking about households that bring in $1M plus income in a year. These people are the uber-rich. Many of them make more in interest than they can spend in the same amount of time. They sit on old money that makes new money for them while they play golf and travel in private jets. The govt is asking for 5.4% of their yearly income to address America's health care problems. I can assure you that they will not have to make a sacrifice in their lifestyle to help. Meanwhile, 60% of personal bankruptcies are due to extensive medical bills.

All founding fathers were hypocrits at some point. But, he did give most away when he died. But, while alive, he only gave 10%.

Similarly, the working class and poor make their money off the backs of the rich. What would the working class and the poor be without the rich? Probably poorer than they are currently.

I don't understand all of the animosity toward the rich that I read here on current. It seems a very common part of the poverty mindset.

Without the rich and the "idea people", the one's who provided the means for everyone else to make a living, what would that be like?

There's a lot of "screw the rich" sentiment on Current and across much of America. But these people need to think of what life for them would be like without the rich. They can thank the rich for their jobs and all the modern conveniences they enjoy but may take for granted.

Still, they feel entitled to more, an obligatory favor they feel is owed to them by the rich.

@mojojuju if monetary compensation was fair across the board, there would be no problem there. The problem is that it is not. There is not such a sharp distinction between "idea people" and I guess "non-idea worker drones"? Also, the compensation is not delved out based on who has the best idea, it's determined by who owns the means of production. The best idea in the world won't get you anywhere without funding.

I don't understand your reverence for the rich, you probably aren't even one of us.

Mojo, I'm shocked that you can understand/ignore so little about production and business. The working class aren't making money off the backs of the wealthy. I've never even heard that from the most far-right Ranroid, and that's because it's completely not true.

Here's how money is generally made. Someone with money (already) purchases something - a factory, a store, etc, investing a lot of their money. But doing no actual work and with a pretty good guarantee, usually, that they'll get that money back and more (otherwise they wouldn't be making the financial decision in the first place - thus the argument that their work is risk-taking is moot). They pay their workers, who are actually creating the product being sold and doing all the work, vastly less than their work is actually worth. THEY make the largest profit, from everyone else's work, simply because they had the most money originally.

Do you understand now, Mojo?

"What would the working class and the poor be without the rich? Probably poorer than they are currently."

LMAO!!! Think about that statement for a second, Mojo.

If no one had over a million dollars, yet we kept the same amount of money in the country, would the wealth be distributed more evenly? Would the poor get poorer or richer?

Please tell me no one is this stupid and you're just baiting because you're bored.

@PoisonTheMonkey said "Do you understand now, Mojo?"

Yes. I understand very well the level of naiveté and incompetence you possess with regard to business, capitalism, and wealth.

And how would that help? Trying to take money from someone that doesnt have any to begin with is just pointless. Not that Im saying we should tax the rich but, taxing the poor doesnt solve the problem either.

QV doesn't understand macroeconomics.

If everyone doesn't earn equally, you cannot tax them equally.

Even a flat tax would tax those who earn more money than average more, because the percentage would be a higher amount. Let those who earn more pay more, because they have more to give as opposed to the person who works two jobs to pay the bills and mortgage.

That's rather ignorant of the economies of scale.

So let's say the fundamental cost of living is $400 a week. Bare minimum.

If you make $300 a week at your shitty min wage job, and then are taxed 15% of your earnings, you're paying $45 in taxes. Now that puts your total earnings at $255.

Your earnings are now cut to where it costs you $145 a week more to stay alive than you earn.

Now another person who makes one million dollars in a week, 15% is $150,000 a week in taxes. That leaves them with $850,000 left to spend on the basics.

To somebody who makes a million dollars a week paying a couple hundred dollars extra in taxes matters much less to sombody making only a few hundred dollars a week.

That $145 is the difference between eating dinner most nights for somebody on the low end of the economic scale. $145 for somebody earning a million a week, it doesn't mean shit.

A progressive tax is just.

From a macro standpoint, it is far better for the economy to tax the rich, because the government spends ALL of its money (and then some).

It's called the marginal propensity to consume. The poor people and government have a very HIGH MPC, and rich people have a very LOW MPC.

Every dollar that a poor person or the government gets stimulates the economy many, many times more than every dollar a rich person gets. It isn't good for the economy to have a lot of rich people. It is good for the economy to have a lot of middle class people.

There is only ONE way to have a middle class, and that is by ELIMINATING the hoarding of wealth by the few. The ONLY WAY to do that is by taxing the shit out of the rich, and pulling the estate tax up into the 90 percentage range.

You can't earn an absurd amount of money without someone being extorted to produce the wealth in the first place. It just can't happen. Period.

"You can't earn an absurd amount of money without someone being extorted to produce the wealth in the first place. It just can't happen. Period."

this^

Agreed. We need to free up that money that goes to healthcare and stop the causes of bankruptcy, therefore the rich still get money, but everyone is happy in this case.

Economic slavery only hurts the middle class and poor! STOP the war on consumerism! Stop the centralized coercive monopoly, quit believing in love in government, there is none, quite the opposite, these people are their for money and power.