Bill Kristol Sez "It Won't Kill The Country" To Raise Taxes On Millionaires

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/11/sunday_best_gop_open_to_raising_taxes/

 

Get right out of town!

 

Hey, virtually everyone loves Robin Hood...............right?

 

We need to stop with the hyperbole and classware for a minute and be realistic about the situation.

Why raise taxes on the "rich"? Just out of spite and principle? Or to try to balance the budget?

If you answered to "balance the budget", then you need to be realistic about the impact it will have on the deficit. Do the math and show yourself that this isn't a tax revenue problem, but a massive spending problem.

Let's not use the majority to infringe on the minority's rights just out of spite and "principle", deciding that they already have "enough".

 

Do you have a right to decide how much they should have? Should they be able to tell you how much is "enough" for you?

 

I agree.

Which is why a flat tax makes sense. We all get to vote on what we're comfortable with, not what we think somebody else should be comfortable with.

 

It's interesting to see the people who wish to move forward on principle and those that wish to pander.

 

Rates on the top earners in Ike's day were 91%. So anything below 91% can't really be considered a tax "raise".

No coincidence that America peaked in the early 60's, as far as standard of living and positive standing in the view of the world.

 

You would be correct, Sir.

http://www.inplainsite.org/what_happened_when_the_praying.html

 

I wanted to check on this because i didnt believe it, but Maris you are right, and in '44 it was 94%....

I've always been conservative on this but seeing this data is pretty startling. How exactly were we going to pay for two wars without raising taxes??? My ideology is shifting from that one post...damn...

EDIT

But then i read this:

http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

hmmm

 

I suggest you do some research on the types of tax breaks that were awarded back in those days. Additionally, do more research on the total effective tax burden for various percentiles of earners. Looking at top tax brackets is completely meaningless. State taxes have changed, social security rates have changed, medicare, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc, etc, etc.

 

Here's a good post from your link:

TomMercerOctober 18, 2012 12:18 AM

Hey Andy,

When the rich dude has '90% of his food taken', it doesn't disappear. It gets spent by the gov instead of him. So instead of viewing him as a 'job creator', he's just another consumer. He may consume other peoples' labor (time/skill/effort) in creating a corporation to earn him profits, but he's not a job creator. The market demand creates jobs. Not entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs just chase demand and buy labor in order to earn even more revenue and make profit. Entrepreneurs do not create jobs unless the demand permits them to profit. They are not responsible for job creation. It's a side effect of profit-seeking.

You and all libertarians confuse that taxes are not just 'taken'. They are not burned under the Capitol in a Pagan Orgy. They are just respent by the gov't, which again, creates jobs, and multiplies as the dollar flies around the economy. If the government destroyed each dollar it taxed, your viewpoint (shared by millions of misguided Americans) might be valid (even then, it would deflate the currency still around, so it probably wouldn't be valid). But it's not. The government spending money is a much more effective job creator and employer than rich entrepreneurs spending the same money. The question is, how can you spend a dollar that it will fly around the economy the most times. If you leave it with a rich man, he won't spend it unless there's already a good economy in which he can get a great return. But the government isn't interested in ROI for themselves, they're looking for biggest multiplier effect they can find. The latter is much more likely to move economies toward fuller deployment of capital so supply can meet demand, and fuller utilization (higher employment) can be realized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier

One thing that liberals and conservatives will disagree on, is whether the government spending creates demand. I think it depends on how they spend it, but I can prove to you it creates demand.

Indulge in the following thought experiment: imagine the US gov't printed money, took in war bonds, and spent all the money exactly how it did to build tanks, planes, ammunition, etc during WWII. Now imagine that instead of fighting a war, we just sent thousands of men, planes, bombs, tanks, etc to the bottom of the ocean, or out into space on a one-way trip to the sun.

Now, realize the economic effect is 100% exactly the same whether those planes/tanks/bombs/men fought a war or were sunk or fired into the sun.

 

Classic Marxism:

 

...