Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Britt and Juan duke it out over tax cuts for rich.

Juan Williams nails Brit Hume here when Hume laments the percentage of America's overall income that rich people are being asked to pay in taxation.

They are paying such a large percentage of the nations tax bill because their earnings are so disproportionate to the earnings of everyone else. 39% of nothing is nothing. 39% of an awful lot is an awful lot.

Rather than bemoan the amount of tax that they are being asked to pay, shouldn't the richest 5% be grateful that they are earning such vast sums of money in the first place?

And, at a time when the nation is being asked to bailout banks and other businesses which pay these astronomical salaries, is this really the best time for Hume to mount his defence of the beleaguered rich?

“Over the past two or three decades, the top 1 percent of Americans have experienced a dramatic increase from 10 percent to more than 20 percent in the share of national income that’s accruing to them,” said Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director. Now, he said, is their time “to pitch in a bit more.”
My sentiments entirely.

Tags: , , , ,


daveawayfromhome said...

Brit also failed to mention that the top 1% percent own 75% or so of the nation's wealth. So why shouldnt they be required to pay more taxes?

Then there's that douche-bag Chris Matthews, and his "we allow" point, which totally overlooks the idea that in America, the people are sovereign, and so yes, we allow it. Government of the people by the people - that'd be We The People.

Kel said...

Brit Hume is being simply moronic. If the top 5% are paying 60% of all income tax then that means that they are earning a massive share of all money earned in the United States.

As far as I am concerned there is a very simple choice here. You can either earn a lot of money and pay a lot of tax or you can earn a little money and pay a little tax. I know which side of that equation I'd prefer to be on.

And the Matthews "we" point should be answered with a simple "yes." Yes, the government decide the rates of taxation, as they have always done.

I simply don't get why Matthews thinks that the use of "we" is any different from the Bush administration deciding to cut taxes for the wealthy. Governments set tax rates, that's hardly a new concept.

daveawayfromhome said...

50-60 years ago, the wealthy paid huge taxes on their income, but it never seemed to stop them from making more. If money was the only motivation there was for success, this would be a very different world.

Steel Phoenix said...

Here we go again. Democrats and Republicans arguing over who's money to waste.

The government will consume 40 percent of the GDP in 2009. I have an idea. How about they go get a real job and get their hand out of my pocket.

Kel said...

How about they go get a real job and get their hand out of my pocket.

SP, Running the country is a real job and they need to put their hand into your pocket and everyone else's pocket because they don't actually have any money of their own with which to build the roads and schools which we all demand of them.

The question is how do we fund what they do most fairly. Obama has decided that Bush's tax cuts for the rich should not be renewed. I agree with him.

Steel Phoenix said...

My point was supposed to be taken as: How about we quit arguing about who to tax more and reduce spending instead. Surely there must be a government program out there you see as over funded?

Kel said...

Sorry SP if I misread your point. Obama has said that he is going to cut programmes which don't work.

But that won't be enough on it's own. Taxes will have to be raised as well, especially from those whom Bush gave tax breaks to for the past eight years. That holiday from paying tax has come to an end.

And I think there is no government programme more over funded than the US military, who spend more on weapons than the next forty or so country's combined. Slash that and you would be well on the road to balancing the books.

Steel Phoenix said...

I'm not sure where to cut the military. I hear people wanting to cut things like the new fighters, but I hate to cut tech. Without our tech, our only way to achieve military superiority are with size, which seems a lousy way to me. What we really need to cut is not so much programs as waste. I get the feeling if we just cut across the board, things would still get done.

Kel said...

I agree, the US military machine is already massive. There must be something that could be cut back on without causing the thing to fall apart.

Although I would understand any reticence as the Republicans will jump all over it.