Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 9 months ago

    The Plutocrats win again.
    • No changes on loop holes for the rich.
    • No tax increases for the wealthy.
    •`Dividends still not counted as income so not taxed like it.

  2. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 9 months ago

    Deficits are almost never solved on the spending side alone. The most effective deficit reducing policy is expanding productivity and low unemployment (say around 4%). Low unemployment reduces deficits in a number of ways. The most obvious is higher tax revenues from greater economic activity and consumer spending, which multiplies through the economy and produces even more economic activity. The other way is by reducing the amount spent on social safety nets – unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid and the like. And the most productive spending is on infrastructure, research, and stuff that improves the productive capacity of the nation. If the private sector is not providing sufficient spending, which in a moribund economy, it almost never does, it is up to government to get the ball rolling – roads, bridges, ports, etc. But for the government to spend they need tax revenue. And the place to tax is on the wealthy, much as was done after WW2 when the nation flourished. Probably the Republican House knows what has to be done, but they will not do it for Obama. Get a Republican in the White House with a Republican House and watch the tune suddenly change and the money taps be turned on. Either that or they will continue with their failed policy of tax cuts, in which case the economy goes down the drain once again. A better outcome would be for a Democratic House in 2014. Then look for a saner economic policy.

  3. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, 9 months ago

    @Night-Gaunt49

    — How much households at different income levels will pay in federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes for 2013.


    Bottom 20 percent

    Average income: $10,552.

    Average tax bill: -$284.

    Average tax rate: -2.7 percent.

    Share of federal tax burden: -0.4 percent.


    Middle 20 percent

    Average income: $46,562.

    Average tax bill: $6,436.

    Average tax rate: 13.8 percent.

    Share of federal tax burden: 8.6 percent.


    Top 20 percent

    Average income: $204,490.

    Average tax bill: $55,533.

    Average tax rate: 27.2 percent.

    Share of federal tax burden: 71.8 percent.


    Top 1 percent

    Average income: $1.4 million.

    Average tax bill: $514,144.

    Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.

    Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent.


    Note: The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households pays no federal taxes. Instead, many families in this group get payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, giving them a negative tax rate.


    Source: Tax Policy Center

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/1-percent-taxes-2013_n_2802243.html

  4. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 9 months ago

    The New York Times ran an op-ed Tea analysis of the budget deal that provides a prose version of Ms Benson’s cartoon.


    The bits of the sequester that applied to defence were repealed without insisting that they be applied in full to non-defence expenditures, plus fees on airline passengers, which is a tax, increased, so more tax and spend.


    Of course, the RINOs tried to point out that the sequester on defence HAD to be repealed: there are goatherds ready to invade the US and impose Sharia Law, and the US defence is so fragile that a cut of 1¢ leaves the US defenceless against goatherds armed with sinister staffs and cutting crooks, and there was no way they could persuade the DINOs to impose even more cuts on non-defence expenditures than were in the final bill.

  5. mikefive

    mikefive said, 9 months ago

    @Michael wme

    “… there are goatherds ready to invade the US and impose Sharia Law,”

    If anything imposes Sharia law in the U.S., it won’t be a bunch of goatherds. It will be the U.S. court system.

  6. Jase99

    Jase99 said, 9 months ago

    @Debt Free

    Not nearly has much as the corporations still getting their government subsidies. Welfare is still welfare.

  7. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 9 months ago

    @Debt Free

    “…… Full employment is around 5%, to imagine a lower number would be forcing people to work for minimum wage jobs..”
    .
    Baloney, that 4% unemployment would “force” people to work for minimum wages. Full employment would enable many jobs to pay more than minimum and all would benefit. Many economists think an unemployment rate of 4% is about right. That is a rate that is consistent with a stable rate of inflation. Not to mention that a few hundred thousand working rather than not working is always better. A lower rate of unemployment strengthens the working and middle classes by enabling wages to rise and providing more purchasing power in the economy. Many in business mistakenly like a high rate of unemployment because it keeps wages low. That is narrow and incorrect thinking.

  8. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, 9 months ago

    @Night-Gaunt49

    Your ignorance is overwhelming. Dividends are taxed. I will agree that dividends get preferential treatment, but they should. After all, the investments were bought with the money that the government allowed us to keep from our earnings after we pay tax on those earnings. Additionally, without dividends there would no way to build a large business and that will lead to fewer jobs in the economy. But, hey, that is not important to those of you on the extreme left.

  9. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, 9 months ago

    @Gypsy8

    With a Democrat house, Senate and President,
    None of us would have to work. We could have unlimited unemployment benefits, and Nancy Pelosi says that is the best economic stimulus. Then we would have to tax the rich even more, so as to lessen the stimulus for investment. That leads to fewer jobs and more spending on unemployment and welfare benefits. Yep, that is the way to go.

  10. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, 9 months ago

    @ConserveGov

    Very well put. The only add on that I can give is to comment on Earned Income Tax Credit. It was designed to refund the withheld Social Security tax and Medicare tax, but like all government giveaways, it has become one more welfare program.

  11. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 9 months ago

    There are far more places to cut the budget than social programs. While I would very much appreciate a tighter rein on them, I feel a scalpel would work better than a machete.

    But those who choose to ignore the corporate welfare and military bloat (especially projects that even the spendthrift Pentagon does not want) will never see the true picture. Again, a scalpel would work better.

    And there’s much work that needs doing, and people being paid not to work. This makes no sense. Why can’t we make workfare instead of welfare? Infrastructure improvements are often grunt work after the engineering is done, and much of the engineering is done, but “we can’t afford” to fix our bridges or roadways…..give me a break.

    But if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten.

    Any real thinkers in Washington? Raise your hands high…..if your representative is not, see if you can help him/her use his brain and power to effect some true valuable change. This is our only hope. Fighting on GoComics may make us feel better, but will get us nowhere. And follow through at the voting booth; vote for do-ers, not for talkers, regardless of party, and things can change for the better.

  12. denis1112

    denis1112 said, 9 months ago

    @Night-Gaunt49

    I’m guessing you don’t pay any taxes at all.

    Or have a job.

  13. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 9 months ago

    @Debt Free

    Okay if you like to do nothing, are satisfied with a bare minimum, have no self respect, and no ambition for the future. Most have higher aspirations. There are some free-loaders. Most on welfare have run out of options. Fewer would be on welfare with policy that does not result in extreme disparity of income and growing.

  14. phdtogo

    phdtogo said, 9 months ago

    @Gypsy8

    Your ignorance of history is appalling. The economic success of the United States was not due to heavy taxes on the wealthy. After the war, there was no competition from China, Japan or what now constitutes the European Economic Community. As the rest of the world struggled to emerge from the ashes we converted our unparalleled industrial capabilities from wartime to peacetime production. There was demand for American goods throughout the world and at home, especially after the lean years of wartime rationing. The post-war economic boom brought an unprecedented rise in the standard of living of most Americans. Perhaps you need to move your head out of your Stalinist arse.

  15. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 9 months ago

    @phdtogo

    I was not making a causal relationship between high taxes and prosperity.If you wanted a comment on reasons for post war prosperity I could have done that, but that was not the purpose of my post. I was making the point that there was much government spending during the war and post war for the war effort, post war reconstruction, and building of infrastructure back home. Government responded and imposed high taxes on the wealthiest – something like a marginal tax rate of around 80% I believe. High taxes for a targeted purpose did not damage the economy. In fact the economy flourished, which also amply rewarded those paying the high tax. Well, there is a need for infrastructure spending now, and the need for creating productive jobs for the strengthening of the economy. The problem with your attitude is, not that you’re looking for a free ride, but that you’re looking for a cheap ride. As W. Buffett said, “Its not right that people like him pay proportionately less that their secretary.” And Buffett knows a thing or two about creating wealth.

  16. Refresh Comments.