Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   dtroutma said, 6 months ago

   So, they’re standing under a cliff in the Caymans???
2. 

   Radish said, 6 months ago

   Its only four per cent of the wallet.
3. 

   Cinci Steve said, 6 months ago

   He knows it will only pay for 8 days of government spending and will do nothing to help the economy, but it doesn’t matter. It’s “revenge” time.
4. 

   Stipple said, 6 months ago

   I’m sure President Obama’s spin doctors are doing all they can about making the best of a situation they have absolutely no control over.
   .
   The President fervently wishes congress would work for America and do what is necessary.
   But not even the President can force common sense on angry men.
5. 

   Random Nick said, 6 months ago

   @Cinci & Scott… I suppose that those that will not study history can still pull a 3.0 if they ace their other subjects. Or something like that.
   Historically, the way it works is that with higher taxes, businesses pump the money back into the company with subsequent higher employment and productivity. With lower taxes, they pull the money out and employment goes down. It’s a proven repeatable pattern.
6. 

   Michael wme said, 6 months ago

   @Mr. King

   It’s absolutely factual. They’re quite right. Provided, of course, you look at 1957, when the income of the top 1% was less than 20% of the total GDP and they paid a marginal tax rate of 91% on unearned income and 50% on earned income.

   
   When the middle classes complained about having to pay taxes back then and wanted to tax the rich more, increasing the tax rate on the rich to 100% would have paid for 8 days or less of total government expenditures.

   
   Any decent academic will tell you that, once a calculation has been done, you can’t get published doing the same calculation again, so I’m sticking with the 1957’s 8 days. It’s not worth re-calculating just because the tax rate is less than 15% on people like Romney, and the income of the top 1% is more than 40% of total GDP.
7. 

   Ms. Ima said, 6 months ago

   @Radish

   That ‘4%’ is 10 times what you ‘earn’.
8. 

   Chillbilly said, 6 months ago

   My money’s on the rich surviving this unspeakably horrible, crippling crisis. In fact, they are going to do quite well. No … they’re going to keep being and getting filthy rich and keep trying to not pay taxes forever.
   .
   That’s what “REVENGE” is, amigos.
9. 

   dfrechet said, 6 months ago

   Oh…and the backpack has rocks in it!
10. 

    dannysixpack said, 6 months ago

    @cinci steve,
    
    
    what you have here is a specious argument (look it up). Let’s assume everything you say is true, it will only fund the government for 8 days. that’s 8 days more than right now. So it’s a move in the right direction. If you were starving to death, and you could only get 1 cookie a day, but were still free to look elsewhere, you would starve to death a lot more slowly (it’s amazing what little food humans can live on).
    
    now what you have is a matter of fairness. the framework of the republicans talking points is supurbe. no one is talking about taxing the rich more, we’re talking about TAXING THE RICH THE SAME. the republicans LOVED to scream about special interests. your argument is FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS. by definition, if you are giving 1% (certainly a special interest), special treatment – paying LESS taxes, then you are holding up the whole country for a special interest.

    
    
    comprehend english?
11. 

    mickey1339 said, 6 months ago

    @Mr. King

    “Where did this “8 days” figure come from?

    I’ve been hearing that for some time from multiple posters with no substantiated reference."

    I’m not completely satisfied with the explanation given here, but it does provide pertinent data and I will pursue this until I can find a really thorough explanation.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/28/Obama-Tax-Hike-On-Rich-Will-Fund-Govt-For-8-Days
12. 

    M Ster said, 6 months ago

    brietbard.com is just another part of the rightwing echo chamber, along with Fox News, Rush, Beck, etc. Not a source of anything other than biased opinion.
13. 

    M Ster said, 6 months ago

    My guess is that the 1% is not so concerned about their marginal rate going up from 35% to 39%, and are much more concerned about the loopholes that allow guys like Romney to pay 14%. For Romney, the difference between 14% and 35% is an additional $4 million in taxes (an additional 20% of his $20 million income). And Romney is small change compared with billionaires.
14. 

    Radish said, 6 months ago

    @Ms. Ima

    And a million times what you ‘earn’.
15. 

    mickey1339 said, 6 months ago

    @M Ster

    That is the problem. I am trying to find something that presents objective data acceptable here, which means it is devoid of any partisan slant, but that includes a liberal bias as well.
16. Load the rest of the comments (12).