Thursday, December 2, 2010
Should the Rich Stay Rich?
It's time for Congress to decide and vote on whether or not to extend the tax cuts set during the Bush Administration. The concept is pretty simple: no tax cuts for anyone, tax cuts for people who make under a certain amount, or tax cuts for everyone, including the rich. Gallup recently conducted a poll and it turns out that Americans would like to keep tax cuts, but set new limits on who gets them. The number that has been thrown in for consideration right now is $250,000. What is surprising to me about the outcome of the poll is that tax cuts for everyone versus tax cuts with limits were very close, 40% to 44% respectively. Both the House and the Senate are seated with fairly wealthy people who may vote with personal biases. But all that aside, in economic times like these, should the rich be given tax breaks? And, do they actually need them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think, and hope, that the Congressmen and women we have elected are able to see past their own personal biases and vote on what is better for the people they represent. Although I believe that we should all get tax cuts, but for the sake of the economy, I think it would be best to alleviate the less well-off people of this nation of some high taxes. Eventually it would be nice to see tax cuts for everyone but the rich should not be given tax cuts as of now.
I think that the rich should not be given a tax cut, i think that tax cuts should only go to those who need it, such as families that don't meet the requirements above welfare or those who live in poverty. giving wealthy business a tax cut is different but i think we should tax the rich more heavily.
I think the rich should be given tax cuts. People work hard to earn their money, and it should not be taken away from them. If we give don't give tax cuts to the rich, I believe there won't be an incentive to work as hard when you know that you're gonna make just a little bit high as those who are of a lower class.
I agree with Joe, i think that congressmen and women need to put all personal bias aside and make a clear vote, that would end up helping the country in these hard economic times. i do believe that the rich should not to avoid tax cuts, I think they should pay more than the average worker in today's society. I do believe however that the price that seperates the rich from getting text cuts should be raised to 500,000 instead of 250,000
I agree with Casper. i think everyone should be given tax cuts. if they make a law then it should apply for everyone. The rich, for the most part, have worked very hard to become what they are and therefore should get the same benefit as everyone else.
I also believe that the more well-off people should not be included in the tax cuts. Tax cuts are necessary, and it would be most suitable to be applied to people who are of lower social classes.
I agree with everyone that said the rich should get tax cuts because otherwise it wouldn't be fair to them. Why should rich people have to pay more than other people just because they have a higher income? Even though it does benefit the economy if tax cuts were not given to the rich, it's not the right thing to do. I mean, how would you feel if you were that rich individual and had to pay more taxes than others?
The rich obviously don't NEED tax cuts or tax breaks because of their overwhelming wealth, but they would prefer to have them. However, I do think that the rich and the middle-class (and maybe even lower-middle class) should continue to have the taxes we have now. I think we should tax the people who can afford to be taxed. For the folks that aren't so fortunate and cannot possibly keep their finances afloat, tax cuts should be administered.
Now, I do understand that I am no the taxpayer in my household, so I cannot necessarily provide any experience to back up my beliefs. Even though I cannot fully fathom or comprehend the effects of taxes on my money, I can imagine. Hopefully, if I become someone in the middle class or higher, I will still be willing to pay taxes, even if lesser-fortunate Americans get tax breaks.
Your title seems biased. Anyways the rich don't need tax cuts. Although they are taxed heavily, they make an incredible amount of money and don't need that much money in their lifetime. Maybe they can just learn to live modest lives. Also the Reagnanomics or "trickle down" economic plan doesn't really work; That's one of the main arguments for giving tax cuts to the rich. That they would trickle down the wealth that they have to other parts of the economy, when in reality they just hoard the money, which screws our government over.
I agree with Casper and Ryan. Most people who are rich have worked their butts off to get there. I feel like the only fair exception would be celebrities, because in my opinion they are way over paid. They do not work as hard as a doctor who had to go through years and years of extra school. It is not fair to take away hard earned money. If it's just going to be taxed and taken away, why even bother?
Also, if they do happen to end up taxing the rich, like Max said, I think they should up the price cut off. Yes $250,000 is a lot, but what if the family has kids going through college or something? People need their money, and it is not fair to put taxes on some, but not others.
Erica brings up a good point. Especially in the case of doctors because they not only work hard but have to pay off a massive amount of debt. They may be making 250,000 dollars or over, but they had/have to pay off a massive amount of debt from med school. That being said, I think that it would be prudent to raise the 250,000 cap, as there is definitely a point at which there is just going to be money sitting in a bank. As we all know that can not only hurt the government, but also the economy. Just think, Bill Gates could create his own 50 billion dollar stimulus package (or so).
*WARNING - ENTERING RANT ZONE*
You've been warned.
I'll be blunt: the answer to the question is "no." For far too long, the plutocrats have held all the money and all the power and it gets more sickening by the year. As of 2007, 1% of America owns 33.8% of the wealth*. Don't forget that this was before the market crash of 2008, which drove the wedge even deeper as more and more average Americans lost it all as the AIGs and Merrill Lynches fell safely on their golden parachutes**. I'm not saying that the bailout was unnecessary, but the fact that it even was necessary is disgusting in and of itself. Personally, the concept of "too big to fail" sickens me in and of itself. There should be no corporate force big and powerful enough such that it can ensure its own survival no matter how incompetent, corrupt and opressive it becomes.
But I digress. Why are politicians so afraid to take money away from - no, not even take money away from, slightly reduce the obscene profit margins of - the richest of the rich, while perfectly willing to deprive the nation's poor of $2.2 billion in desperately needed food stamps? The answer is simple: politicians don't depend on the poor for reelection. They do, however, often need funding streams from the rich and the corporations they run. Therefore, that's who they listen too. Let's face it: there's no real voice for the poor in government, or at least not ones that mean anything, as they get drowned out by the raging river of cash streaming from Wall Street to Capitol Hill. Thanks a lot, Citizens United. We love you***.
But I digress again. Should the rich be given more tax cuts? Certainly not. As was once famously said, this kind of trickle-down economics is "like giving all the food to the horses hoping that some passes through to the sparrows." The rich deserve to bear the same burden that we all do, and that means going through hardship just like everybody else. Yes, they've worked hard to get where they are: stepping on countless workers and allies, inheriting all that money...what hard labor, indeed! Nothing compared to the workingman working his fingers to the bone with fourteen-hour days in factories and services, right?
I call BS. Shape up and pay your dues, for you can only dupe us for so long. Make amends while you still have the time.****
*: Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2
You probably thought there was some kind of disclaimer down here, didn't you?
**: Note: The author of this post does not endorse or reccomend actually using a golden parachute, as gold is a very heavy material that will likely accelerate the rate at which you approach terminal velocity rather than slow your descent. The author takes no responsibility for any deaths caused by people using golden parachutes after reading this disclaimer. Do not try this at home. The plutocrats you see using these golden parachutes are trained professionals at utitilizing money for nothing.
***: I don't love Citizen's United.
****:No, the ghost of Karl Marx has not possessed my computer. Sometimes you have to be radical to get people to react at all, and I just felt like being a firebrand. Sue me.*****
*****: I have tried to refrain from attacking any of you personally, and the above should not be interpreted as ad hominem attacks. If you can rationally explain how you take personal offense to any of the above, I will apologize. I will NOT, however, apologize for my radical beliefs. Just because I'm not a moderate does not automatically make me wrong.
Post a Comment