POLJUNK

Firstly Mike, I would like to say that it's great to see you on Pol-Junk. You've added a lot to this site. And I, and Jude, appreciate it. But Dude, I have to say, with respect, do you really think it's gonna be any different with democrats?

When you're talking about moneyed people - all bets are off. If you spend a night in the Lincoln bedroom, you're in. Your privilige is more likely than not going to superceed tax laws, etc.

Harriman backed Clinton. Um, hi. Do you thing this man gave a tinkers damn about taxes? I don't.

Even if these people are taxed a tad more, I don't believe it affects them whatsoever.

Where the real money needs closer examination is in, oh say, coal fired power plants. Make those sons-of-bitches get scrubbers. Make them responsible for environmental clean-up.

This whole idea of allowing the rich to get richer is just a diversion from the issues we truly need to address.

My 2 cents.

Barbara

Hi Barbara,

That's nice of you to say, and I appreciate it. I'm enjoying posting on poljunk.

Regarding taxes, the rich, and Democrats. I definitely think our tax, budget, and deficit situation would be markedly different if the Congress and the White House had been controlled by the Democrats for the past six years instead. The richest 2% of Americans wouldn't have gotten a major tax cut, we'd have balanced budgets (as we did under Clinton), and the national debt wouldn't have doubled in the past 6 years.

I've had similar discussions with friends who think that, ultimately, it doesn't make a difference which party is in control. I respectfully disagree. I think that, even with the corrupting influence of money in play, there are fundamental differences between the two parties that make a big difference. With Democrats in control, we at least have a chance of addressing the crises we're facing; with the Republicans in the driver's seat, we don't.

The reason I highlight the issue of the rich and taxes is that I think the disparity between rich and poor, and our dwindling federal tax revenue, make it difficult to face environmental issues, healthchare issues, and any other major federal challenge that requires significant investment. You can't do it without tax revenue, and Bush's tax cuts have cost this country billions. Today, the richest tax bracket pays 35% of their income in taxes (less, with good accountants). Back in the Clinton years, it was almost 40%; until 79, 70%; and until 1964, it was 91%. So tax "reform" has benefited the super rich hugely, but the tax burden on regular Americans (earning less than $250,000 a year) has grown. That's not right.

I think it's an important topic, and I'm glad you commented on it.

Mike

Today, the richest tax bracket pays 35% of their income in taxes (less, with good accountants). Back in the Clinton years, it was almost 40%; until 79, 70%; and until 1964, it was 91%. So tax "reform" has benefited the super rich hugely, but the tax burden on regular Americans (earning less than $250,000 a year) has grown. That's not right.

When the top tax bracket was 70%, individuals in that bracket didn't pay 70% of their income in taxes. You are confusing tax brackets (marginal tax rates) with effective tax rates. The effective tax rate is the percentage of an individuals income that goes to taxes. For a look at effective income tax rates over the years, see this from the CBO:

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7718&sequence=0

When the highest tax bracket was 70% (in 1979), the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was only 22%. In 2004 (the last year in the 12/06 report), the effective tax rate was 20%. It is lower, yes, but so is it for every other group (by even larger percentages).

The report also shows the "tax burden" over the same period. In 1979, the top 1% of taxpayers paid 18% of all income taxes. In 2004, they paid 37% of all income taxes.

John,

Thanks for your detailed response on this. I love the fact that you quoted me back to me - that's a first for me :-).

You're right, I glossed over the tax brackets issue and the fact that people weren't paying 91% of their entire income in taxes.

But what I'm trying to get at is this: The federal government spends more than it takes in every year. That has to change. We can reduce spending in some places - military R&D, farm subsidies - but we have to increase revenue. The only way to do that is to increase taxes. And I think that burden should fall on the wealthiest households in the nation. Those households have benefited greatly from the economic and regulatory environment this country provides, not to mention the 300 million consumers who buy the products and services that make rich people rich.

Over the past 45 years, we've ran a deficit each year, except 1969 and 4 years in the Clinton era. Something has got to give. Am I wrong?

Since you liked that so much I'll do it again :) :

but we have to increase revenue. The only way to do that is to increase taxes

No, it's not the only way to increase revenue. Economic growth increases tax revenue without increasing taxes. A larger economy taxed at the same rate results in greater tax revenue. I want politicians to focus on growth first and foremost.

I wanted to bring up something about this with your first response regarding "dwindling federal tax revenue". Tax revenues are at all time highs. They aren't dwindling. The deficit is getting smaller, not larger.

Over the past 45 years, we've ran a deficit each year, except 1969 and 4 years in the Clinton era. Something has got to give. Am I wrong?

Tell me the awful effects of nearly 45 years of deficits and then we can discuss whether you're right or wrong .

(BTW, thanks for the polite response, a rarity on blogs)

It's a lot easier to say "they're all equally as bad" than it is to take sides. But the people who take sides are the one's who decide how things are run and what is going to be done.

Taking sides doesn't mean that you give in to the establishment either. Over the past 5 years the "netroots" on the Democratic and liberal side of the political spectrum has made a big impact on the direction of the party. As a collective group of disperate wonks, they don't particularly have any sacred cows. If a Dem isn't doing the right thing (someone like Harold Ford, for instance) they go after him almost as quickly as they savage the idiots who follow Darth Cheney.

That's a lot different than what goes on in the republiCON camp, where it takes 6 years of mindless, pointless, badly administered war before anybody bothers to question what's going on.

There is a difference, both in substance and in practice between the two parties. Are many politicians in both parties souless beasts? Yes, sorry to say. But it simply does not follow that because of that both parties produce the same results.

If you want universal health care, if you want to deal with environmental problems, if you want to address workers rights, etc. etc. you simply won't find that in the republiCON party. It doesn't exist. You only have one one real substantive alternative. You can either sit on the sidelines or you can take sides.