Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 08, 2019

The general public, meanwhile, keeps saying pretty clearly that the rich should be paying more -- and certainly not less. Yet there's never a news cycle dominated by coverage of the idea, for example, that some House Republican has the outlandish notion that rich people should have their taxes cut.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

No ----. Yet the poor morons in the south will keep voting in agents of the 1% every time because Jesus.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-01-08 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

DC consistently ignores the needs and wants of the 99 percent.

#2 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-08 01:11 PM | Reply


@#2 ... DC consistently ignores the needs and wants of the 99 percent. ...

While it is nice, and often quite convenient, to put the blame on DC, you have to look at whence those elected representatives come.

Why do Republicans around the country continue to vote such radicals into office?


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-08 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3 The same reason the Dems do?

#4 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2019-01-08 05:09 PM | Reply

The same reason the Dems do?
#4 | POSTED BY PINKYANTHEBRAIN

You're a moron.

Most Dems on the DR are scared of AOC and constantly call her ideas "pipe dreams" and "pie in the sky fantasies". They're worried she'll alienate democratic voters.

Democrats elect moderates for national elections because they are afraid of alienating independent voters, not giving a damn about liberal voters because they expect us to choose whoever they give us because they're "the lesser of two evils".

No. Democrats tend not to vote radicals into office. That's a 100% Republican attribute, and it results in the country being dragged further to the right.

On the other hand, Democrats have no problem electing corporate owned politicians into office. Which is why Democratic politicians have, time and again, defended corporations over individuals.

It's why the party demonized Bernie Sanders. It's why they're painting AOC's ideas as fantasies.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-08 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You know that today people drove their ---- boxes down roads that are crumbling under their 4 tires that don't match past abondoned store fronts on their way to a job that barely pays them enough to get them to come back, and they are nodded their head in agreement with some hate radio host as they explained how someone paying more taxes on the money they make after they make that first million of the year will ruin everything.

#6 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-01-08 06:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

It's why the party demonized Bernie Sanders. It's why they're painting AOC's ideas as fantasies.

#5 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT

Does Bernie support ICE?

AOC does.

#7 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-01-08 06:35 PM | Reply

"On the other hand, Democrats have no problem electing corporate owned politicians into office."

We elect the best candidates that we can actually elect. Third party voters vote for candidates who will never be elected. I don't apologize for doing the best we can actually do instead of failing to prevent the worst candidates from winning.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-08 06:53 PM | Reply

"On the other hand, Democrats have no problem electing corporate owned politicians into office."

True, but that's merely in keeping with the Founder's intent.

And I don't mean some two-centuries ago intent like slavery.

See: Citizens United.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-08 06:57 PM | Reply

Taxing the rich is very popular ...

This rich guy is all about taxing rich people ...

Ocasio-Cortez's 70% tax plan gets fierce response, but even Warren Buffett says rich should pay more

www.cnbc.com

In a 2011 piece Buffett penned in the New York Times titled "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich, " he called for a raise on taxes for everyone making more than $1 million. He called for an even more severe tax hike on those making more than $10 million or more.

"I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering,"

Buffett wrote in the Times. "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Also, Buffett says he has not seen higher tax rates discourage investment. "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off," Buffett writes in the Times.


We're the richest country in the world and we keep doling out trillions of dollars of free taxpayer money millionaires and billionaires and corporations already making record profits, yet we as a country argue over foodstamps ...

With the world's largest economy pulling an annual ~ $18 trillion GDP and we can't afford single-payer healthcare and free college tuition because we must coddle rich douchebags at all costs, literally.

#10 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-08 08:49 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#5 🤔 Then who voted for AOC?

Republicans?

#11 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2019-01-08 11:07 PM | Reply

Taxing rich is popular? Why wouldn't it be ... tyranny of the majority.

With the world's largest economy pulling an annual ~ $18 trillion GDP and we can't afford single-payer healthcare and free college tuition because we must coddle rich douchebags at all costs, literally.
#10 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

You don't see the relationship between the largest economy and not having single payer/college tuition?

literally?

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-08 11:30 PM | Reply

Most Dems on the DR are scared of AOC and constantly call her ideas "pipe dreams" and "pie in the sky fantasies". They're worried she'll alienate democratic voters.

Thats just silly talk .... she's the bomb ... go with it ClownShack...

#13 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-08 11:31 PM | Reply

"You don't see the relationship between the largest economy and not having single payer/college tuition? "

Is your cockamamie theory actually that we've grown this much because we don't choose to fully educate our populace?

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 11:32 PM | Reply

Is your cockamamie theory actually that we've grown this much because we don't choose to fully educate our populace?

#14 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If conservatives ever succeed in fully gutting education and blocking immigration, the economy is toast. How can you you grow an economy if you can't improve the workforce, increase the workforce, or invent new technologies?

Conservatives would usher in a new dark age of superstition and religion-based oppression.

#15 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 11:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most Dems on the DR are scared of AOC and constantly call her ideas "pipe dreams" and "pie in the sky fantasies". They're worried she'll alienate democratic voters.
#5 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Its infuriating. Its just like with Bernie; they can be so lucid when discussing anything else and then they achieve trump base-levels of willful ignorance when discussing his or her policies.

#16 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 11:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

. she's the bomb ...

#13 | POSTED BY THE DUD

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-08 11:44 PM | Reply

It's why the party demonized Bernie Sanders. It's why they're painting AOC's ideas as fantasies.

#5 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-01-08 05:21 PM | REPLY | NONSENSE

Bernie hasn't been demonized by the democrats ever. Qualification wise H Clinton was probably the most qualified person to ever run for president and if anyone was demonized it was Hillary. So stop all the Bernie was robbed BS.
Having popular ideas doesn't mean he could have carried through on any of them and if you ever really looked at the issues Hillary and Bernie were not that far apart.

Here's the fact Clownshack Hillary was demonized by both sides.... BOTH sides... let me say it again BOTH SIDES and she still won the popular vote. If Bernie had the balls and chops you claim he does why didn't he run as an independent and kick everyone ass? I'll tell you why... he sold out... like a typical politician.

Bernie and Hillary both got their political start as college activists in same era. Bernie went on to move to white Vermont to be a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker whichever.... Hillary meanwhile stayed in the political trenches and worked it.

The fact that you and the rest of the Bernie bots... live in fairytale land about Bernie Sanders is the reason they call you unicorn believers... because in that regard you are.

Nobody is afraid of AOC... I remember when Bill and Hillary were discussing universal health care and everyone ran the same smarmy nonsense about Hillary and they are about AOC. AOC is a freshman politician... lets visit her in 30 years after she has some scars. In the mean time pull your head out of your @$$ and stop acting like a victim.

#18 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-01-09 07:53 AM | Reply

"Why do Republicans around the country continue to vote such radicals into office?" and Dems too?
The answer is simple: Conservatives enjoy substantial increasing control of our education system and complete control of the nationalcommercialized broadcasting system, which they use to promote falsehoods for personal gain.

#19 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-09 08:37 AM | Reply

WSJ

top 20% already pay 87% of all taxes, does the left want them to pay 90-95-100%

the top 1% pay $140B more than the bottom 90%

what's the number?

#20 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-01-09 09:19 AM | Reply

"top 20% already pay 87% of all taxes"

No they don't. You're pretending income taxes are the only type of federal taxes.

"the top 1% pay $140B more than the bottom 90%"

No they don't. You're pretending income taxes are the only type of federal taxes.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 09:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You don't see the relationship between the largest economy and not having single payer/college tuition?

literally?

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Those things would GROW the economy. Freeing consumers from the burdens of healthcare and college would allow them to give their money to people besides bankers and insurers.

We can't afford those things because we blow all our money on a completely pointless military. You don't need a massive army to defend yourself when you have nukes. You only need a massive army if you plan on invading other countries.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-09 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No they don't. You're pretending income taxes are the only type of federal taxes.

#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-01-09 09:42 AM | FLAG: .... and you are talking apples vs oranges as they do pay 87% of all personal income taxes to the federal govt.

#23 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-01-09 11:48 AM | Reply

We do tax the rich - we have a progressive tax system. The problem comes in when special interests groups convince congress to throw in all kinds of deductions/incentives that reduce the effective tax rate of the rich.

#24 | Posted by taxman at 2019-01-09 11:49 AM | Reply

"and you are talking apples vs oranges"

Nonsense. Dubya cited payroll tax overcollections as a reason for an income tax cut. A federal tax is a federal tax is a federal tax.

"...they do pay 87% of all personal income taxes"

Then the claim of "87% of all taxes" is wrong.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 11:52 AM | Reply

"We do tax the rich - we have a progressive tax system. The problem comes in when special interests groups convince congress to throw in all kinds of deductions/incentives that reduce the effective tax rate of the rich."

Baloney. Those who earn their money through capital gains taxes pay a lower percentage of tax than I do on my wages. And they don't have to get out of bet to earn it.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-09 11:53 AM | Reply

"to throw in all kinds of deductions/incentives that reduce the effective tax rate of the rich."

And for that, the rich will express their GRATitude.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 11:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Those who earn their money through capital gains taxes pay a lower percentage of tax than I do on my wages"

You just affirmed Taxman's claim.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 11:54 AM | Reply

While the conclusion made from the premise is inherently flawed due to human nature, I still believe that the majority should rule. If the middle class makes up the majority and wants the rich to be taxed higher, then it should happen regardless of how I or anyone else feels about it.

The inherent flaw though is that OF COURSE it's popular, because the rich aren't the majority. If the POTUS came around and said he wants to raise taxes significantly on the middle class, it wouldn't be popular with the middle class. Same thing with the lower class. Kind of common sense. S

#29 | Posted by humtake at 2019-01-09 11:56 AM | Reply

You could generate $193 billion annually with a net worth tax of 0.38%, even with an exemption for the first $1 million in property. This would merely be an infinitesimal reduction in the rate of return the wealthiest people see on their investments.
www.peri.umass.edu, pg 76.

People underestimate just how much wealth is concentrated at the top of our society.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 12:06 PM | Reply

The inherent flaw though is that OF COURSE it's popular, because the rich aren't the majority. If the POTUS came around and said he wants to raise taxes significantly on the middle class, it wouldn't be popular with the middle class. Same thing with the lower class. Kind of common sense. S

#29 | Posted by humtake

If the rich don't want everyone else to vote to raise taxes on the rich, the rich should be working to make life EASIER for everyone else, instead of making it HARDER, as they've done for decades.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-09 12:09 PM | Reply

Those who deny that our economy would prosper with higher taxes on the rich are in denial of our history between 1932 and 1980.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-09 12:09 PM | Reply

Those who deny that our economy would prosper with higher taxes on the rich are in denial of our history between 1932 and 1980

Stop focusing on marginal tax rates. While the marginal tax rates were high, the effective rates were quite low. At the end of the day, what matters is the effective tax rate, not the marginal rate. And any comparison of historical marginal rates is of little value, given the ever changing mix of tax deductions, credits, and tax shelters.

#33 | Posted by taxman at 2019-01-09 12:30 PM | Reply

See also -

taxfoundation.org

#34 | Posted by taxman at 2019-01-09 12:33 PM | Reply

See also -

taxfoundation.org

#35 | Posted by taxman at 2019-01-09 12:33 PM | Reply

TAXMAN thought his username would hide his economic illiteracy. It doesn't, taxman.

#36 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-09 12:59 PM | Reply

At the end of the day, what matters is the effective tax rate, not the marginal rate.
#33 | Posted by taxman

By that logic, the repub tax cut wasn't needed. They kept whining that our corporate tax rates were so high, ignoring that the effective tax rates were much lower.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-09 01:04 PM | Reply

Most Dems on the DR are scared of AOC

LOL you're a Trumper and you don't even know it.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-09 01:07 PM | Reply

#38 | POSTED BY JPW

He was talking about the clinton cult, not himself. People like hulk, who get that trumpish amnesia as soon as liberal democrats start threatening their failing conservative establishment.

#39 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-09 01:25 PM | Reply

But Sean Hannity says that if you raise taxes on the rich, that they will stop eating out at restaurants and will allow their homes to fall into disrepair:

www.huffingtonpost.com

OCU

#40 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-01-09 03:05 PM | Reply

"Stop focusing on marginal tax rates. While the marginal tax rates were high, the effective rates were quite low. At the end of the day, what matters is the effective tax rate, not the marginal rate. And any comparison of historical marginal rates is of little value, given the ever changing mix of tax deductions, credits, and tax shelters."

That is total baloney. Yes changing deductions do have importance but the starting line is still the marginal rate then we can get to the details. If marginal rates aren't important then explain why the Republican tax cut for the 1% is going to cost 1.5 trillion dollars. Obviously though, we would need a tax increase larger than their tax cut if we hope to reduce the debt.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-09 03:17 PM | Reply

"That is total baloney. "

No, it's not. You can have a top marginal tax rate of 99%, but if it's only for income over $100 Billion, what does it matter? Back in the 90% Eisenhower days, there were lots of loopholes and deductions. Virtually no one paid 90%, and absolutely no one paid a 90% effective rate.

Here's the difference. Marginal rates are the amount paid on the last dollar of income. If you're in the 22% Federal Bracket and 5% State Bracket, your marginal rate is 27%. But your effective rate is definitely lower, because you have deductions, as well as lower brackets to pass through on your way to the 22% bracket. For example, your first $9525 of taxable income (if you're single, it's the amount over $12K) is paid at a 10% rate. So is Warren Buffet's first $9525.

So, let's do the math: Let's take a single woman with income of $31, 525. She'll get a $12K Standard Deduction. The next $9525 will be taxed at 10% ($952) and the next $10,000 will be taxed at 15%, or $1500, for total income taxes of $2452. She's in the marginal bracket of 15%, since her last dollar was taxed at 15%. But her effective rate is only 7.78%. It's her total taxes (2,452) divided by her total income (31,525).

Anyone wanting to play the home game version:
Grab last years taxes and look at your 1040, Line 63, your total taxes. Divide that number by Line 22, your total income. That's your effective rate.

Next, go to line 43, and subtract $1000 from that number. Compare the difference in what you'd owe to the government. For 2017, if it's $150, you're in the 15% marginal tax bracket. If it's $250, you're in the 25% marginal tax bracket. If it's between those numbers, one of two things is going on: either you just broke into the higher tax bracket with the last $1000 you earned, or those earnings moved some other number, for example made Social Security a little more taxable.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You can debate the technical details with your tax expert buddies, that's not me. I want a tax system like we had post WWII which allowed us to pay off our war debt in a few years and it was a greated percentage of GDP than even the debt we owe today. The details of that aren't really much of a concern, I'll leave that to those who understand all of those details. You know what I am asking for here, I never want another year, especially while we are not at war (of any real significance) yet still run up 779 billion dollars of debt. And I want to balance our budgets without cutting SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Whatever tax rate does that, as long as it is very progressive, I will support.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-09 04:18 PM | Reply

Oh, and yes, I do want the top few percentage of the wealthiest Americans to share a big portion of that. They've accumulated most of the wealth so let them pay most of the taxes.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-09 04:20 PM | Reply

"You can debate the technical details with your tax expert buddies"

Yes, but you should know the difference between marginal rates and effective rates if you're going to debate reasonably.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#36, #37

You guys are both off-base. Taxman is exactly right.

And the effective rate will almost always be lower than marginal rate.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 04:33 PM | Reply

#46 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I was referencing Taxilliterate's link in #33, his #32 is a non sequitor. Of course the effective rate is lower than the marginal rate for a progressive tax.

The link tries to argue that the marginal rate will barely generate any revenue and so we shouldn't bother. It wholly ignores modern wealth inequality and the magnitudes of increase in total wealth the richest of the rich hold compared to the 60s. Like typical conservative arguments, it understates the level of wealth the rich now have and preys on the economic illiteracy of the average joe.

#47 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-09 04:54 PM | Reply

We should tax Fat Andy Mackris' Daddy at the 99% tax rate for having such a free loading lazy moronic son that rarely leaves his basement.

#48 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-01-09 05:09 PM | Reply

"top 20% already pay 87% of all taxes, does the left want them to pay 90-95-100%
#20 | POSTED BY MAVERICK"

I want them to pay taxes equal to their share of wealth.

How much taxes do you want them to pay?

You can't even say.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-09 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Taxing the Rich Is Very Popular"

And water is wet.

#50 | Posted by Tor at 2019-01-09 05:15 PM | Reply

We should tax Fat Andy Mackris' Daddy at the 99% for having such a free loading lazy moronic son that rarely leaves his basement.

#51 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-01-09 05:50 PM | Reply

#49 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You're never going to convince a conservative with rates and fractions. You may as well be reading them the Declaration of Independence; its all foreign and confusing to them.

#52 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-09 06:13 PM | Reply

Maverick thinks rich people who are now in a 20% tax bracket pay 87% of the taxes. They never paid 87% of the taxes when they were in a 37% tax bracket under Clinton or 87% when they were in the 90% tax bracket under Eisenhower. People who are in business for themselves write off all their personal expenses against their business you stupid idiot. The example that the IRS made of Leona Hemsley, happens once in our lifetime because she had too big of a mouth. Republicans have cut the IRS to the bone, so they can barely audit anyone anymore. Most of these people pay 0-5% in taxes.

Economic Policy found that 40% (100) paid no taxes in at least one year between 2008 and 2015. Eighteen, including General Electric, International Paper, Priceline.com and PG&E, incurred a total federal income tax bill of less than zero over the entire eight-year period meaning they received rebates.

Facebook, Aetna and Exxon Mobil, among others, saved billions in taxes by giving options to top executives to buy stock in the future at a discount. The companies then get to deduct their huge payouts as a loss.

American Electric Power, Con Ed and Comcast, qualified for accelerated depreciation, enabling them to write off most of the cost of equipment and machinery before it wore out.

Drilling for gas and oil, building Nascar racetracks or railroad tracks, roasting coffee, undertaking certain kinds of research, producing ethanol. Making movies saved the Walt Disney Company $1.48 billion over eight years.

Multinational corporations like Apple, Microsoft, Abbott Laboratories and Coca-Cola have ways of booking profits overseas, out of the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. The truth is that we have a rigged tax code that has essentially legalized tax dodging for large corporations,

You sir are FoS.

#53 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-09 09:45 PM | Reply

When businesses are surveyed regarding factors important to their investment decisions, taxes come in behind proximity to markets, suppliers, and the quality of the labor force. These other factors occupy a larger percentage of a business's budget than do taxes, and all of them are far more critical to long-term success than are taxes.

Anecdotal stories and illustrations also confirm the tax fallacy. High tax states such as Minnesota have generally fared better in terms of economic growth, unemployment, median family incomes, and location of Fortune 500 companies than low tax ones such as Mississippi and Alabama. In many situations high taxes come with good government education, workforce training, and infrastructure, correlate positively with income, low unemployment, and business retention. One needs to look not just a one side of the equation to see what value businesses get out of taxes in terms of educated workforces and infrastructure investments. Most debates fail to do this.

#54 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-09 11:33 PM | Reply

"High tax states such as Minnesota have generally fared better in terms of economic growth, unemployment, median family incomes, and location of Fortune 500 companies than low tax ones such as Mississippi and Alabama."

Alabama has been Right-To-Work since 1953; Mississippi since 1954.

See all the good it's done for them?

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 11:39 PM | Reply

I love 'right-to-work' states as unions are not denied, just people are not forced into one. I thought that the left loved freedom of choice, with the exception of healthcare [obamacare].

#56 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-01-10 10:26 AM | Reply

I thought that the left loved freedom of choice, with the exception of healthcare [obamacare].

#56 | POSTED BY MSGT

The problem is that "right to work" states combine that illusion of "freedom of choice" with an intentional deeducation of its populace. That leads to inbred conservatives not understanding why a union would help them, and so they undermine other laborers and our economy as a whole.

In other words, its like a drunk driving law; sure people should already know not to drive drunk, but republicans prove that simply isn't the reality of our society.

#57 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-10 10:35 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort