Curtis is dead wrong in this regard, but his point is a point that almost every single republican trys to make when you talk to them about tax rates.
They really are comparing apples to oranges and it comes across to the American Public as sound economics!
Curtis was trying to say that the 1% pays 30% of the total amount of taxes the U.S. government collects... therefore "they are already following the Buffett Rule".
They (republicans) love to compare the total amount paid in taxes rather than the actual percentage of their income they pay in taxes. Its unfair, erroneous, and completely dishonest. The total amount that you pay in taxes should have nothing to do with the percentage of your income you pay. It really is comparing apples to oranges.
For example if Warren Buffett makes 100 billion dollars and pays 15 billion in taxes (a 15% rate) and Joe "the plumber" makes 100k and pays 35k in taxes (a 35% rate), republicans will say "well look at how much Buffett had to pay, 15 billion. That's a huge number compared to 35k. Buffett is paying way more in the total share collected. He shouldn't have to pay more. In fact he should pay less!"
So when Curtis came up with the number that the 1% pays 30% of taxes he was talking about 30% of all the tax money collected in America not the rate at which they paid it, yet he decpetively tried to make it a valid comparison!
What their pea brains fail to realize is that, yah the total amount of taxes is more than the total amount that you or I pay but they also TAKE HOME A WHOLE CRAPLOAD MORE MONEY HOME. 85 billion in this example...
So please if you read this Thom start calling republicans out on this dirty tactic. It is totally deceptive and confuses the heck out the average American and republicans love to use it all the time!
Comments
The whole point of taxes is for people to pay thier fair for the "commons" as Thom points out every day.
When you compare Buffets 15 billion to the plumbers 35k you have to ask yourself , did he really use the library that many more times in the past year? And why did he pay more for the Military and the Police to defend his life than that of the plumbers? Aren't they equal under the Constitution, and in the eyes of God?
I suspect you show your true motivations when you shreik enviously about how the rich "TAKE HOME A WHOLE CRAPLOAD MORE MONEY HOME".
Like Thom, you don't actually see taxes as a way for a man to pay his way in society, your eyes bulge and you salivate at the naked booty grab.
How ignorant do you want to appear to be? If you keep posting your "pay your own way" nonsense, you will get a much bigger boob rating. Right now, you are not near the top of the ignoramuses who are certain about so much that is wrong. You just ask really dumb questions proving that there can be dumb questions. Or, maybe you are that ignorant.
Buffet understands that he is very fortunate, not just really good at making money. He appreciates that he has a lot more to lose than most if this country fails, so he is willing to give back to the community to keep his own interests healthy and profitable. BTW, the word is shreek, and it is not about 'envy.' The problems with the rich taking home all that money are structural as well as about the value added or not. Why is a teacher's work so much less valuable than a hedge fund manager? Why do the Bain guys get paid for bankrupting companies? They are being paid to advise American Airlines to default on the pensions of American Airline workers, and the latter do real work while the bums from Bain add no value to the economy or to us. We would have to pick up the pensions while AA pockets the savings. Is that what you support?
The other part of the problem is that Say's Law about unproductive capital is involved in their money in their bank accounts instead of invested in the real economy. The rich do not invest wisely for the economy even if they keep their fortunes intact. Other people pay for it.
The naked booty grab is what we hate about the BainCapital goons and the rest of the banksters and privateers. They do not earn this money. They do not return value for their takings. We pay for it, and there is nothing about envy in the anger we feel about these bums.
And yes, the corporations do use our courts and our laws more than the average worker does. They don't pay for it, of course. We do. Learn something and stop embarrassing yourself here.
To me it's clear from history that hoarded and concentrated wealth just leads to disaster. So preventing that from occurring should be the first goal of any society. Higher than lowering infant mortality rates, raising life expectancy, etc. The cancer must be prevented.
Now, what we do with that confiscated wealth is the important debate. It can't be squandered.
There are lots of good investments to be made, but even if most of it was just "given to the poor" it would help the economy come into healthy balance. Invest it in the infrastructure of prosperity and security. You know, universal free education through college. Free healthcare. Roads, rails and green energy. Take care of our water and stop pumping sewage into our water systems. Compost and burn garbage for energy to replace fossil fuels. Here in Hawaii, this is a big thing and could save a ton of money for the islands. Invest in the arts. That would boost our human quality too.
The only truly negative thing to do with "our money" is to let it escape into offshore banks and the private accounts of those who cannot reinvest it productively. If we confiscate half the wealth of the rich, they would still have too much money to spend effectively. This is not about envy or greed from the bottom. If the rich were great at being rich and really got their wealth into productive investment that worked for all, we would be perfectly happy to let them do it. They cannot do it. It is absurd to moralize this fact into an injustice.
there is no such thing as a free lunch. when money makes money (the main source of income for the rich), some poor slob down the line has to work his body with blood and sweat earning near minimum wage in paltry conditions to pay for it.
the actual tax code should actually be based on "income"
if i work for 8 hours and get $15 an hour, at the end of the day i broke even: exchanged 8 hours of my life, depreciating my body in exchange for $120. even exchange, no income. should not be taxed (tax can be collected on goods/services i use with that exchange).
if however some guy with millions of dollars in the bank makes $50000 in a day interest without putting in a single minute of time, that's all income. plus some poor slob has to pay for that down the line. tax that to hell, then tax it some more.
Here's 2 ways of looking at it.
1. Jefferson and Madison said that taxes should rise GEOMETRICALLY according to your ability to pay.
As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.-----------------------
As Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1784, "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." And, as earlier noted, as wealth rises, so should taxes -- "geometrically."
2. Hartmann always rationalizes it that the rich should pay geometrically more in taxes because they presumably use the commons geometrically more than the average employee to make their fortune.
All their employees are educacted at public taxpayer expense, their trucks use millions of miles of road a year, they use the public legal system geometrically more than the employee etc etc.,you get the point.