Keep Taxes Low for the Rich to Help the Poor (and Everybody Else)


Jenny Erikson
Jenny Erikson
Are you ready for the biggest tax increase in United States history? Me neither. My only hope is that the still Democratic-majority Congress will vote to extend or even make permanent the so-called Bush tax cuts.

As it stands now, everyone’s taxes are set to go up January 1. The average American household making the average American income of $52,029 will see its federal taxes go up 10%, from $11,261 to $12,441.

That’s a lot of money to be forking over to the government so that Congressman John Conyer’s scalper son can have a sweet ride.

It seems that most of Congress wants to extend some of the tax cuts -- specifically for those households making under $250,000 or individuals making under $200,000 annually.

This discriminates against high-income earners, who are already picking up more than their fair share. The top 1% of earners (those making more than $352,900) pay 28.1% of all federal taxes. Despite what Warren Buffet says about ‘doing his part’ for society, it’s not fair to foist your beliefs on other people.

Maybe some business owners would rather give bonus checks to their hard-working employees to boost morale, or expand operations, or invest in something new, rather than give up that money so that 20-somethings won’t have to get a job while they’re ‘discovering’ themselves.

When high-income earners have more capitol to invest, the economy booms, benefitting everyone. History has shown over and over that this is the case. The most recent tax cuts were passed to boost the economy that was going downhill right as George W. Bush took office in 2001. It worked too; GDP grew more than it had in 20 years and unemployment was the lowest it had been since WWII.

In the last 100 years, only two things have pulled a declining economy out of its downward spiral. One was a war, which pulled us out of the Great Depression. The other was cutting taxes for everyone, including the rich. Ronald Reagan did it, John F. Kennedy did it, and Andrew Mellon did it.

Never ever in all of history has raising taxes on high-income earners led to greater prosperity. In fact, when you raise taxes on the rich, federal income actually dries up.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Mellon in 1921:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people. 

Why would this time be any different?

barack obama, corporations, discrimination, economy, politics, tea party


To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

Pundi... PunditMom

FYI -- the GOP all voted AGAINST extending the Bush tax cuts because the Dems only agreed to them for those making $250K and under. Because they couldn't get their way for the rich, the Republicans are willing to screw everyone.

I hope that's a policy agenda you can live with.

nonmember avatar ldsmom

Pundit- That is the same things unions do... If they don't like everything in the package that is being offered they strike. Why is it ok for the Dems to do it but not Republicans? The Republicans are trying to get the right answer, and not settle for some BS the Dems are trying to scoot by. And yet again, people like you will blame them for the problem when the real problem is that they are only trying to help one half the the people. Why is that ok? Answer: It's not.

nonmember avatar Jen

For some reason it's hard for me to make it through a blog or newscast, without vomiting, that is really a gripe fest about how unfair it is for the wealthy to *gasp* have to pay more taxes. Newsflash - you make more money, you pay more taxes. If it is fair for the working class it's fair for those who sit on their ass and rake it in on the backs of others. The part I found most amusing, and it was hard to pick just one, was how American households average $52,029. Not even close.

tayanna2 tayanna2

It's all about the percentages. Right now the highest tax is 35%, but 35% of 250,000 is significantly less than 35% of 2,500,000. Everyone complains about how the wealthy don't pay their "fair share" or they succeed "on the backs of others" but how should a business work? Should they give away all of their profits? Everyone seems to have a disdain for the evil corporations, but if you have a 401K or other stock investment - then YOU are the owner of these "evil" corporations making a profit to pay YOU! So why don't you give me the money from your 401K if you disagree so vehemently, I'd be happy to invest it and turn a profit and pay my fair share of taxes.

rerra... rerratron

I'd be thrilled just to have a JOB, let alone a 401K. Still waiting on that trickle-down effect...

Daria Drago Giron

I just recently learned of the proposed tax hike for me. It has little to do with my income bracket and everything to do with the fact that I am raising children.

Here's my post if you're interested in my personal take on this...

hotic... hoticedcoffee

And yet again, people like you will blame them for the problem when the real problem is that they are only trying to help one half the the people. Why is that ok? Answer: It's not.

Brilliantly put, Idsmom.  Would LOVE to see a response from Pundit, or anyone esle who thinks unfair tax burden is fair.

Super... Superabound

So Jenny, here it is 2 years later, after we passed more tax cuts for the where is the prosperity? Where is the benefit to the economy? Where are all the jobs it was supposed to create?


1-8 of 8 comments