Why Tax Hikes For the Wealthy Are Inevitable

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Good article. For mr. 250k and 4 kids in college. You'll survive. You're not paying for the sins of those less successful. You (we're) paying for the sins of the investment banker, free-wheeling tinkle down capitalists who caused this. The lack of fairness is only in that they're not paying for this mess.

William Bradley of AZ 3:22AM July 08, 2011

Obviously a number of the readers commenting won't be affected by these taxes. I find it incredulous that the adminstration continues to say that this will only affect the "rich millionaires" who can afford it. Well, I make more than $250K, have 4 kids, college tuitions, a mortgage and general expenses and by no means am I rich. I don't mind paying my fair share but where's the fairness in further burdening the most successful Americans to pay the share for the least successful? Funny thing ommitted from the article and comments above is that there are over 50MM Americans who pay NO tax at all today....whatever happened to personal responsibility. What the general population fails to understand is that many small businesses make more than $250K and would be adversely impacted. At a time when we're trying to start the economy and enhance hiring, this burden would stiffle those very goals.
How about instead of continuing to put in place more government spending on wasteful programs like Healthcare, Amtrak and the Post Office we cut or kill those black holes.

PJ of DE 2:53PM November 03, 2010

We should not forget that the world was turning even 60 years ago when the tax burden was much higher. The US should not fear to show muscle again and stop being driven into poverty by a very very small minority of super rich! The same happened here in Europe over the last couple of years and in rich Switzerland money is running out for schools and social security. We are going to vote on a general tax rise for high income earners end November 2010 and all polls show an overwhelming YES to that plan. The talks about companies and rich moving out are as old as taxes are and know what? It's nothing than hot air - or does anyone think all millionaires suddenly think it cool to live in Yemen, North Corea, Nigeria or Ivory Coast where taxes may still be negotiable? Almost every country in Europe has considerable higher taxes than the US has, even cheap Switzerland is making it more difficult for the wealthy. We should not forget that security, an existing infrastructure and eventually courts and not money deciding in a lawsuit are very good reasons to live in the country of origin not only for average but also the high earners. So if people think it is clever fearing the rich heading out elsewhere if moderate tax hikes take place, do not hesitate to ask them where exactly they consider them all to go to! It is a myth and nothing but a myth that a big number of high earners will leave. And for expenditure, they'll need as much milk, bread and pasta as they did before and moreover, the one that has donated to charities so far will continue to, this has nothing to do with the tax burden. The one that donates wants others in less favourable conditions to have their lot eased, that's exactly what it is about. Donating is mainly for one's personal psychological hygiene. Why not? If I earn way more than what I need and I may remember the days when I did not and know how it is to run short on money, I may think it a personal positive obligation to give a part of my surplus away. Fortunately donations did increase all over the world during the last couple of recession and economic downturn years. The way I like it to be. So do not be afraid to raise the tax for rich or at least bring it back to that level where it was a few years ago, and I am not talking of the 90 % a few decades ago... . Yes we can!

Troendle Markus 5:31PM October 29, 2010

So the wealthy are just going to just stop spending and the economy is going to go in a free-fall. Stop getting charitable tax deductions and refuse to invest their wealth and grow it because of a 5 percent tax increase? LOL Wow great argument.
And if you actually look at the facts, the 1990s was one of the biggest booms in our economic history and do you know what the tax rate was for the rich, it was 5 percent higher. But I guess that means nothing and did you know there was a big economic boom before the 90s in the eighties and the tax rate was even higher then!
AND did you know that another significant boom in our history, post war world two era into the mid sixties and guess what the top tax rate was then?? 90 percent.

john of KS 4:41AM October 18, 2010

What exactly did Bush de-regulate? Can you explain what he deregulated? I doubt that you can because in regard to the financial markets which I am sure you are inferring to he actually increased regulation. With the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, but I am sure you are too dumb to know that. It is a actually a pretty significant piece of legislation and was widely opposed by corporations.
There is no doubt investment banks were the main reason of the recession but you have to ask who enabled them? The government and they did that by deregulating the -antitrust- requirement that prevented traditional banks and investment banks from existing within one company. Once that happened, instead of using customer's savings to issue loans they used much of that money to speculate and buy MBO, CDOS and gamble with it.
Do you know when this major de-regulation occurred, it occurred in the late 90s and was signed by CLINTON. Also I don't know if you know this but there was something called the Internet bubble(which did not just magically happen because bush was elected) in the early 2000s that preceded the 2001 recession and something called the 9-11 attacks that exacerbated that recession but I guess you don't know that either.
I am not a supporter of Bush but I just think it is sad that so many people are ignorant and so quick to blame a president who did not cause the recession and have no idea what they're talking about.

john of KS 4:35AM October 18, 2010

Rick Newman is fooling himself. The term 'wealthy' may or may not be correct, depending on the cost of where you live - Chicago vs. Chattanooga. One thing is for sure, the 'wealthy' will most certainly cut back or stop donations to charities, cut back on employee overhead & ways to do more overseas than here in the U.S.A. Does a tax hike REALLY the wealthy suffer? Only when it comes to how they filter their money to others.

Realisreal of VA 8:14PM October 16, 2010

check the tax loop holes these days, how many people pay more than 33 percent. If someone is in the 38 percent tax bracket, they more than have enough money to survive these days. It is merely that person's lifestyle that is not allowing him/her to manage their budget appropriately to live on the money he/she earns. It is not the government's responsibility to help you to live the glamorous life. Become a rock star. There are plenty of people who are making far less, who would love to work for six figures. How bout' this, trade in your mercedes for a corolla. Move into a small condo, or townhouse, live next to people who make far less than you, and you may see how good you have it with your income level. There are people who are homeless who look for the next meal or glass of water for their survival, and you complain about a tax rate for your income level. Come on, really!

Justin Moore of TX 4:01PM October 14, 2010

Everything is Bush's fault. De-regulation, bad policy, overspending within Iraq, complete focus on everything except what makes the country run properly. What we need is job creation to the tune of 250,000 a month as was the case in the late-nineties. You can blame the democrats all you want, but the fact remains the republicans were in control of both the house, senate, and presidency for 2001-2006, and the majority of the problems were started in these years. And remember after bush had taken office in 2001, january the economy started to falter. Then again in January 2005, the economy started to falter again not 6 months after he had taken office. So you can blame another all you want, but for me there is a pretty strong correlation between bush taking office and the downfall of the economy. Even now we are getting ready to deal with policies that were enacted under the republicans namely tax cuts. Remember when the republicans were planning on spending money that had not been earned yet through 2010 back in 2001. I hate to say it, but bush was left with a budget surplus when he took office. He left the country with a deficit (along with republican members of House/Senate) of near 10 trillion dollars. So here we are, once again. The age old question, the irresponsible cut tax and spend republicans or the appropriate raising of taxes to cover spending with the democratic party. You decide.

Justin Moore of TX 3:53PM October 14, 2010

I hate it when I read these blogs and all I hear from the demo's is Bush, Bush, Bush. Everything is his fault,the wars seem to be the number one target for this nonsense so let us start there. George W. Bush gave the American people the one thing we wanted most after 911, he gave us the opportunity to kick some terrorist ass around the world. Everywhere I went I heard people both Demo,s and Republicans say that we needed to stand up to the terrorists and make them pay. The problem is that most people think that you can do that in 30 days and with no loss of life like we were in some Rambo movie or something. News flash people.......war is expensive and it takes time. Everyone got what they wanted so shut the hell up!!!

J W of IN 11:25AM October 11, 2010

There is a quote "figures don't lie buy liars figured" and this writer is a classic example of this. Tax rate of 39.5 and the writer said the tax burden is low? This writer is so out of touch... Reading this make me sicken in the stomach.

Dan of CO 2:21AM October 11, 2010