Jeez Louise, what a load of bollocks from Time Magazine.
The article goes on to say:
Climate modelers have long known that households are far bigger contributors to global warming than most laypeople realize. For all the blame tailpipe emissions take for escalating temperatures, homes and office buildings are actually the single largest contributor to greenhouse gasses. One key reason is the 100-plus million refrigerators in America’s 111 million households. According to the Department of Energy, the standard fridge sucks up about 8% of the electricity used by all homes—a pretty big share given the dozens of big and small appliances and electronics that are also drawing juice.
Forget climate modelers, lets look at some real data.
On the other side of the energy and emissions issue, we have this recently released (March2011) report from the US Energy Information Administration (PDF)
Total U.S. anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 were 5.8 percent below the 2008 total (Table 1). The decline in total emissions—from 6,983 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2008 to 6,576 MMTCO2e in 2009—was the largest since emissions have been tracked over the 1990-2009 time frame. It was largely the result of a 419-MMTCO2e drop in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (7.1 percent).
Have a look at CO2 emissions graphically, by energy sector this is from the EIA report:
Now let’s look at CO2 emissions by industrial fuel, still falling fast.
Now here’s the kicker. World Climate Report took the EIA data for total CO2 emissions from the USA, and graphed it against the CO2 emission data for the same period from China:
And these morons at Time magazine are worried about the few extra watts of electrcity used in my electric ice maker and trying to make me feel guilty about it?
I can’t print what I’d like to say.
UPDATE: Some commenters asked about employment -vs-CO2, here’s a graph that is a close proxy for employment, per capita income -vs- CO2.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well… speaking of beer and CO2. I wonder if our Alarmists have given much thought to yeast metabolism and fermentation. CO2 is a natural by-product of fermentation. And in the US massed produced industrial lager market, over 90 million barrels of beer are fermented yearly. That’s a lot of CO2.
“Dave Springer says:
April 15, 2011 at 9:00 am”
Reply:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/eat-the-rich/237000/
According to this article, the 2008 IRS figures show the total taxable income of individuals making more than $100,000 to be only ~$1.5 trillion, thus merely equaling Obama’s current deficit:
[emphasis added]
Regardless, the “rich” are certainly not people and small businesses, which create most of the jobs, making only $200,000 – $250,000+/yr.. As per usual, the essentially parasitic Statist redistributionists simply redefine who is “rich” continually downward, redistributing the “wealth” as they go mainly to themselves and their cronies. Eventually, it’s the Statists themselves who “strip the profit off the backs” of anyone available.
And, as already well proven, Communism never works, nor does Socialism, even taken to the milder extremes now seen in Europe, which, according to Marx, should have instead been premonitory to the perfection of his Statist Socialism and then to the
Garden of EdenCommunist Utopia.The essentially infantile Statist redistributionists really do see only a fixed pie of eternally existing “wealth” which somehow just magically exists, “the rich” having “unfairly” obtained too big a piece, thereby creating “the poor” – or an America made rich via “Imperialism”, which thereby explains poverty in Africa and, of course, the fall of the Soviet Union and its benign Communism.
But however big it is, it’s a pie which Statist redistributionists always destroy, as now even evidenced by the fact of our own country’s noble Statists having perfectly directed its own State toward governmental suicide. And by now is it any surprise that, according to Obama, apparently the
“rich”whole country is next?If instead of essentially being a parasitic latte’ or “Marxisant” Communist, Obama had any actual economic knowledge – and really cared about “our” people and Country and about our, or at least his own brand of government – you’d think he’d be smart enough to want to increase profit, since that’s where Government gets its money, and not simply increase taxes on profit.
If Obama really understood economics and history and the manifest creativity of the Individual’s free thought process, including its creation of economic wealth, you’d think he’d want to increase real employment, the availability of real energy, and unfetter the creativity of the Individual, instead of enslaving it to the State via his preachment and promised imposition of the wonders of those “positive liberties” he alleges to be so lacking within the U.S. Constitution.
After all, didn’t we hear as to his State of The Union address that he was then Reaganesque?
An easy way to improve the energy efficiency of your fridge is to increase its R-rating. Take some foam board and apply it to the sides and top (use the type with foil on one side and have that face outward). Then put on your tin foil hat.
@JPedan
April 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Awesome!
It’s possible that, having figured out the “rich” are always going to get their piece of the pie, the Kool Aid drinkers have set their sights on just destroying the pie altogether so the “rich” can’t have any.
Juliette says:
April 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm
“In my opinion, the purpose of this sort of article is to inspire guilt and self-loathing in readers…”
I agree, that is the intent of this sort of article, but what it actually does unintentionally is Anger a lot of people. Most people who are disgusted by this sort of article are usually intelligent and aware of their responsibility within their own environment they live in, people wont tolerate being spoke down to like their a child or a sinner who doesn’t know any better, especially when it’s the more wealthy in society doing the talking down to, to the poorest and less fortunate, that really disgusts me, I work hard and if I want an Ice box I’ll buy one. not because I hate the environment or give a flying frock about my carbon foot print, no, I might go out of my way tomorrow and actually buy one because some Idiot holier than thou told me not too.
As long as you don’t put the ice into good Scotch or red wine, you don’t need to worry.
From Dave Springer on April 15, 2011 at 7:54 am:
Did you know there’s a strip heater at the freezer section opening? I’ve found them behind the metal between the top freezer and the bottom refrigerator section of every refrigerator(/freezer) I’ve torn apart. They’re there to reduce condensation, which I’d guess is caused by colder air spilling out when the freezer door is open, although mostly due to minimal insulation between the compartments leading that piece of metal to be colder than the rest of the exterior skin. The one on the current old refrigerator died, leading to notable condensation and some rust spots. I haven’t had the opportunity to check any side by side or bottom freezer units, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find them there.
Also, on our upright freezer there is a very warm section on the handle side of the opening, extending almost all the way to the top and bottom. I guess that may keep the entire door seal from freezing in place, ensuring the door can be forced open with the handle. Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised to find such on chest freezers as well.
I realize it’s only a few watts of electricity, and those heaters are on all the time, and that’s about enough power to provide the “equivalent” illumination of perhaps a 40 or 60 watt incandescent bulb… So, how do you engineer those heaters away?
=========
mikelorrey said on April 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm:
This will work wonderfully on the refrigerators that don’t have a separate external condenser coil unit that needs vacuuming, but instead have the condenser coils just under the exterior skin. 😉
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
April 16, 2011 at 3:09 am
Cool! I never tore apart a refrigerator before. Kind of unusual for me as I’ve taken apart just about every other common home appliance to either repair or cannabilize a broken one for parts to use in some other project. For instance, when I was 12 years old I took a junked washing machine and salvaged the motor, water pump, belts and pulleys to make an aerator/filter for a 200 gallon stock tank to hold live minnows. I’d just go net a thousand of them once in a while down at the crick to restock my tank. I used them myself for fishing and also sold them to others. I also kept a thousand night crawlers in a big pile of dirt near the minnow tank. I used those myself and had been selling them too for a couple of years prior. It was a lucrative little business perfectly suited to a kid. Lemonade stands… pffffffffffffft! Those are for babies.
Coming soon to liberal Congress near you – “Ice Maker Tax”.
Tends to make me think of a line from Alvin Lee – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrUqAtUcpU
Tax the rich,
Feed the poor,
… Till there are no rich no more.
Liberals/progressives, if you ever needed a succinct explanation of the impending dead end path that you are forcing us to tread – there it is.
JPeden says:
April 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm
The keyword in the above is TAXABLE income. Gross Income is first reduced on page one of form 1040A through various mechanisms like schedules C & D (capital losses and business losses respectively IIRC) then that is carried over to the top of 1040A page two where it is then called Adjusted Gross Income. This is subject to further reduction primarily through a laundry list form called Itemized Deductions. After all that then we have the figure in your missive called Taxable Income. At that point you look up how much tax is owed on that amount. But that still ain’t the end of it because then there’s a laundry list of tax credits that reduce the amount of taxes that you owe.
You must not know much about federal income taxes if you didn’t catch the lie of omission in the Atlantic article which, in order to present an honest picture, should have begun with Gross Income not Taxable Income.
JPeden says:
April 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm
(continued response)
If it were up to me I’d simplify the tax code thusly:
1) a standard deduction of $15,000 per dependent including oneself
2) a flat tax of 15% on the rest of the income
Try posing that to anyone making over $100,000/yr and then listen to all the kicking and screaming.
Here is where to find the smoking gun.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls
The table lists various income brackets by adjusted gross income (AGI). Adjusted gross income still excludes all the form 1040 page one adjustments to gross income (GI) which for the wealthy means it misses their S-corporations, capital losses, and things of that nature. For everyone else adjusted gross income is essentially the same as gross income. But I digress because the situation manifests nicely even using AGI instead of GI.
Go to the $100,000 – $200,000 bracket. Average AGI in this bracket is $133,000 (column 5). Average taxes paid in this bracket is $17,000 or an effective tax rate of 13%.
For the $10,000,000+ bracket the average is $29M. Average tax is $6M or an effective tax rate of 20%.
For the $40,000-$50,000 bracket the effective rate is 7%.
For the largest single bracket by number of filers ($50k-$75k) the rate is 8%.
For $200K-$500K average AGI is $285K while the average tax is $55K or 19%.
WTF!!!??? The top marginal rate is 35% and no one, even those with AGI in the tens of millions, pays more than 20%.
The higher the income bracket the larger the difference between top marginal rate for that bracket and the actual taxes paid in that bracket. Top marginal rate is a joke for higher income brackets because no one comes even close to paying that rate. This is what needs to be fixed.
QED
@Dave Springer:
I hear ya, but how could we sell something so simple and fair to the vast unwashed masses and to our political masters? So many people want other people to foot the bill, so what’s their incentive to support a flat tax? As to our masters, they won’t be able to buy or sell favors with your proposal, so what’s their incentive to forgo all that campaign cash the rolls in by promising to raise taxes on one while promising to give a special tax break to another group?
I’m convinced there is but one reason we don’t have a simpler tax system — the political class doesn’t want it. Some want to raise taxes on “the rich” and they buy vote and raise lots of cash on that promise. Some want to give special incentives to people or companies who behave a certain way and they buy votes and raise lots of cash on that promise. Some want a flat tax or a fair tax and they buy votes and raise lots of cash on that promise. I swear, they all get together in the Senate cloakroom and promise to each other to never change a thing so the money and the influence never ends.
But we can still dream, can’t we. The reality is it will take a constitutional amendment to make real, permanent changes to the tax structure.
Okay, how many of those households that don’t have refrigerators are in Alaska?
@Dave Springer
You accused JPeden of not knowing much about federal income tax, all the while talking about form 1040A this and form 1040A that. Even very few of what your god Obama would call “rich” would be still filling out form 1040A much past their college days. So, you really don’t know much about what you’re talking about. Just frothing at the mouth with hatred and class envy. To so identify with form 1040A, you must still be in college or on the government dole working at a national lab, or something. If you can’t stand capitalism, why don’t you get the hell out of this capitalistic country and quit trying to destroy it by turning it into a socialist worker’s paradise.
JPeden’s point, which you’re not capable of understanding, is that by taxing capital, you destroy it–shooting yourself in the foot.
All of those deductions and credits are the result of government overreaching to try and nudge society in one direction or another, which is a business it has no business being in.
At the end of the day, it’s the taxable income that matters.
From Dave Springer on April 16, 2011 at 7:49 am:
First off, if you’re using Schedule C, “Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship),” or Schedule D, “Capital Gains and Losses,” then you’re filing a 1040, not a 1040A. C & D are not “mechanisms” for reducing “Gross Income,” they’re for reporting net income (or losses) from those sources.
Really, you must hate old people and small business owners to insist on using Gross Income. There are various income sources that are untaxed for good reasons, like pensions and Social Security. A small business owner (sole proprietorship) could take in $700,000, have $650,000 in expenditures, yielding only $50,000, and in your “soak the rich” scheme (using your original mistaken view on the schedules) you wish to do comparisons as if they had made $700,000? Then there are professionals like doctors, who could take in $200,000 from their practice, then pay out $100,000 in malpractice insurance from their own pockets. You want to pretend they’ve actually made $200,000 for your comparisons?
===
From Dave Springer on April 16, 2011 at 9:15 am:
Once more you’re bashing on the small business owners. S-corporations are preferentially used by small business owners who incorporate for liability reasons, keeping the business and personal assets separate.
Perusing those adjustments to income on pg 1 of the 1040, there are several that are important to small business owners, including the self-employed, which should rightfully be there as recognition of the differences between that income and that received when employed by another, such as health insurance and 1/2 of the self-employment tax (FICA etc of which an employer normally pays as much as the employee, thus when self-employed one pays double the amount). The IRA deduction is there, as those income taxes are paid when the money is withdrawn. (The alimony deduction is also there, which some ordinary taxpayers find very important.)
Your bashing of small businesses is very unseemly.
Continuing on to arrive at Taxable Income, from AGI is subtracted Deductions (itemized or the standard amount) and Exemptions (filers plus dependents). This is generally fair. If you wish to complain about itemized deductions then go ahead, but note that category also includes medical expenses and similar that really put a dent in available cash-on-hand and in many ways represent money that was never really “available for use” by the purported taxpayer.
Take out the bashing of small businesses and the old retired folks, stop griping about the breaks that anyone can get, and it’s revealed Taxable Income is a fair metric.
Also, as you apparently missed, that Atlantic article also presented Adjusted Gross Income figures, which represent a good “level playing field” for comparisons involving business owners and others, which you found good enough for your complaining involving the top marginal rate.
And you, in your apparent naivety, think Gross Income is a good metric, let alone with your stated misconceptions about US Federal Income Taxes?
In any case, you are missing the most important issue.
Money moves. Those with it will normally move it to where they think it will yield the best rewards. Money may be found in many places. Those seeking to earn money can go to where they will get more in their pocket for their efforts.
Here in the US, we’ve already felt the problems of not enough investing in the US. Between federal, state, and local taxes, it’s already expensive to do business in the US. Taxes are high for the higher-paid earners, who can take their skills elsewhere.
Stick with the progressive mantra about “the wealthy paying their fair share,” even more will go to where that share is less. Keep listening to Barack’s rhetoric about “giving some of it back” after they’ve legally earned it, even more will go where they can not only keep all of it, but they’ll get to keep even more of their new money. Kalifornia is already suffering from such state taxation choices. Why would you want to inflict even more of that across the entire country?
Dave Springer on April 16, 2011 at 7:49 am:
You must not know much about federal income taxes if you didn’t catch the lie of omission in the Atlantic article which, in order to present an honest picture, should have begun with Gross Income not Taxable Income.
I’ve done my own taxes for 35 years, as self-employed, Form 1040, etc.. Payed for all of the SS tax, Health ins, retirement, dependents, etc..
Communism, which produces an epitome of the rich vs poor Classist State = Master Party-Slave Proletariat, never works. You need to explain to yourself why you lust for it.
JPeden says:
April 16, 2011 at 10:38 pm
“I’ve done my own taxes for 35 years, as self-employed, Form 1040, etc.. Payed for all of the SS tax, Health ins, retirement, dependents, etc..”
Same here – 37 years. Employed, self-employed, Schedule C, residential rentals, etc. A few years alternative minimum tax too. In the best years when high tech stock options were vesting, prior to the Bush tax cuts, I was paying 38% in federal taxes on essentially every dollar I earned. AMT sucks you even lose mortgage interest write offs and things of that nature. I have no bloody idea how million-dollar-a-year wage earners get away with not paying top marginal rate. I sure couldn’t figure out how to get around it but the data is staring me in the face in that IRS table I linked to.
“Communism, which produces an epitome of the rich vs poor Classist State = Master Party-Slave Proletariat, never works. You need to explain to yourself why you lust for it.”
Spare me the melodrama. This isn’t a communist state and isn’t even close to it. All I lust after is equal treatment under the law. I payed the top marginal rate in years where I had over $250,000 in income and I expect everyone else to pay it as well. It’s lower now than when I was making that much. I was paying 50% more in capital gains taxes back then too.
Here’s the way I figure it. We are fortunate in the United States to have the freedom and infrastructure in place for some to earn a lot of money. It wouldn’t be possible without what was accomplished before us. If you are fortunate enough to earn more than the average you shouldn’t carp about paying more to keep the infrastructure that allows it humming along. And yes that infrastructure includes entitlement programs for the less fortunate and the aged as well as national defense. I served 4 years in the USMC and am a flag waving patriotic American who loves his country. To even hint that I’m lusting after communism is an insult.
But I probably went on too long because that IRS table link I provided showing average adjusted gross income in different brackets and average federal taxes collected in those brackets essentially shut down your argument and left you with nothing but hand-waving and ad-homs in your response. Nuff’ said.
mike g says:
April 16, 2011 at 5:37 pm
@Dave Springer
“You accused JPeden of not knowing much about federal income tax, all the while talking about form 1040A this and form 1040A that.”
1040 vs. 1040A. Simple typo. I do my own tax returns and have been using 1040 for decades. Up until this year when they stopped sending out packets of the same forms used in the prior year I never even glanced at the 1040 form number. I did a 1040ez this year for my daughter. Boy was that easy. It’s aptly named.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
April 16, 2011 at 8:01 pm
“Why would you want to inflict even more of that across the entire country?”
California’s problems are the same as the nation’s. It boils down the simple concept of living within your means. When deficit spending by goverment is allowed the taxpayers don’t feel the burden for years after the fact until the debt has grown so large that debt service becomes a major budget item. By then they’re addicited to the spending and keep on borrowing more until the inevitable happens and the house of cards collapses. This is happening in California and New York but not in Texas. I lived approximately 20 years in each state. The big difference with Texas is that it has a balanced budget requirement built into the constitution. Taxes are low in Texas because there’s no deficit spending and no significant debt service from years of deficit spending. When Texas wants to spend more money they have to raise taxes to do it and the voters feel the burden immediately. This keeps the voters a lot more aware of what’s happening. Deficit spending disconnects the voter from government spending.
Now the federal government is quickly approaching the catastrophe point where debt either gets unwound somehow or there’s a major collapse where the unwinding is forced. Either way it will eventually be unwound. Living beyond one’s means is not infinitely sustainable.
New York State, where I spent most of the winter this year, is taxing everything in sight. What they should have done is a little more taxing in prior decades along with a little less spending such that a balanced budget would be maintained. Everything would be hunky dory if that was the case.
But that’s water under the bridge. Regardless of how the situation was created it must be rectified and it’s far too late to rectify by spending reduction alone. Spending needs to be brought under control so this doesn’t happen again but taxes must also be raised to pay for the indulgences of the past. The nation danced to the music and now the piper must be paid. It’s just that simple. The only question is where the payment comes from and the old saw about not being able to draw blood from a turnip comes to mind.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
April 16, 2011 at 8:01 pm
I’ll concede your point about gross income vs. taxable income but I will remind you that the IRS data I used to make my point used adjusted gross income. If you are self-employed or have a sole proprietorship the details of that are taken into account between gross income and adjusted gross income so they are irrelevant. I was only talking about personal tax returns not corporate filings. It’s probably a given that corporations don’t pay taxes unless it’s advantageous to the owners where the corporate tax burden would be lower than if the profits were distributed to the individual owners. They distribute profits to the owners, or not, in the best interest of the owners or at least those of the owners sitting on the board making those decisions.
That said there is still an area rich for tax shelters on 1040 page 1. Capital gains and losses are one area as you can choose when to claim them. Residential rentals are another one as this is (as far as I’m aware) the only “business” one can have where a loss of up to $25,000 can be repeated year after ad infinitum without being forced to declare the business a hobby. More importantly however is that the residential rental loss may be deducted from other sources of income. That is not allowed for any other Schedule C losses that I’m aware of. Self-employed and sole proprietorships are another as the opportunities for deductions are wide, deep, and generally unavailable to W-2 income. While it’s true that these may not go on indefinitely operating at a loss they can go on indefinitely not showing a dime in profit while taking advantage of a large menu of tax deductions not allowed on W-2 income.
There are undoubtedly many other tax shelter opportunities on page 1 that I’m not familiar with. I just happen to have had some years where I had a sole proprietorship and some years where I had a residential rental so I know about those.
But again, I do concede your point about gross income. I thought I already did that when I used IRS statistics that began with adjusted gross income and compared it to the actual effective tax rate. The top marginal rate is a joke when people who report $10 million or more, where virtually every dime of it is subject to 35% top marginal rate (everything over $330,00) are paying an average of 20% which is only 5 points above the marginal rate applied to income between $16,000 and $68,000 and 5 points below that applied to income between $68,000 and $133,000. What good is a top marginal rate if no one is paying it? The effective top marginal rate is 20%. That’s my point and it’s indisputable.
Anyhow, getting back to the smoking gun:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls
There are 13,480 top income earners (over $10 million in adjusted gross income) that average $30 million per year. They pay an average of 20% of that in taxes. If these people payed the top marginal rate on that income (35%) it would result in $60 billion more in tax revenues. If the Bush tax cut, which was supposed to expire this year, were repealed it would be about $70 billion. Over the next 20 years that’s $1.4 trillion dollars to pay down the debt and it should by law be required to be used for that and that only. But let’s not abolish them and just call it $1.2T.
The next lower bracket $5-10M has 21,390 filers whose average AGI is $7M and who pay an average of $1.6M in taxes or 23%. If they paid the top marginal rate for their bracket it would be $18 billion and over 20 years would be $360 billion.
The next lower bracket $2-5M, average $3M, 86,000 filers, pay $740K or 25%. If they paid the top marginal rate that would be $25B or $500B over 20 years.
The next lower bracket $1.5-2M, 59,000 filers, on average pay $430K tax on of $1.7M or 25%. If they paid the top marginal rate that would be $10B each year or $200B in 20 years.
The next lower bracket $1.0-1.5M, 141,000 filers, on average pay $299K tax on $1.7M or 25%. If they paid the top marginal rate that would be $17B each year or $340B in 20 years.
The next lower bracket $500K-1M, 577,000 filers, on average pay $163K tax on $680K or 24%. If they paid the top marginal rate that would be $43B each year or $860B in 20 years.
Income brackets lower $500K start getting into lower than 35% brackets for significant sums so I won’t bother with them due to the complexity of the calculation.
Totalling up just the revenues from $500K+ brackets, if they paid the existing marginal rates (no repeal of the inflammatory Bush tax cuts) which are historically very low for the U.S. then we’d see:
1200+360+500+200+340+860=$3.5 trillion.
The national debt is $14 trillion. $3.5 trillion over 20 years is a good start but clearly isn’t near enough. The top marginal rate needs to be raised and enforced without exception.
During the 1950’s, arguably one of the greatest periods of economic expansion ever, the top marginal rate was over 90%. Yes Virginia, that’s correct. Over 90%. I guess back in those days people knew that for the nation to recover from the Great Depression and the vast spending of WWII it was those who fortunes remained intact that must take up the burden. Today no one seems to give a shit about the health of the nation – it’s every man for himself. How tragic. I fear it’s all downhill from here. America’s days are numbered.
Dave Springer says:
“Here’s the way I figure it. We are fortunate in the United States to have the freedom and infrastructure in place for some to earn a lot of money. It wouldn’t be possible without what was accomplished before us. If you are fortunate enough to earn more than the average you shouldn’t carp about paying more to keep the infrastructure that allows it humming along.”
Well then, since it’s your “perception is reality” rule, then by all means go ahead on with your own bad self!
But the fact that you feel guilty about making more money than “average” and likewise apparently haven’t been able to force yourself to “give back enough” of it, and you therefore want to tithe it back to what is essentially a parastitic, redistributionist Central Government which is “progressively” heading itself, and us, toward suicide – and to the end of the condititions which create wealth and allow us to be above “average” in the first place – is really only your personal problem to redress, not mine.
And again, why can’t you just “give back” your excess gains freely without gov’t coercion or without everyone else’s company to reassure you? That is, instead of falling prey to your own [self-absorbed] lament:
“Today no one seems to give a shit about the health of the nation – it’s every man for himself. How tragic. I fear it’s all downhill from here. America’s days are numbered.”
Sounds increasingly bad for you, Dave! But, mark you, given the direction you seem headed in so far, when you ultimately get around to feeling personally obligated to follow Obama to Guyana, I don’t have to go there, either! It’s still only your rule!
“”””” Dave Springer says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:08 am
Anyhow, getting back to the smoking gun:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls
There are 13,480 top income earners (over $10 million in adjusted gross income) that average $30 million per year. They pay an average of 20% of that in taxes. If these people payed the top marginal rate on that income (35%) it would result in $60 billion more in tax revenues. If the Bush tax cut, which was supposed to expire this year, were repealed it would be about $70 billion. Over the next 20 years that’s $1.4 trillion dollars to pay down the debt and it should by law be required to be used for that and that only. “””””
Seems like you have a lot of “ifs” in there Dave. Most of the persons, who can routinely “earn” over $10 Million per year; can do that while living any place on earth. And if your rules were implemented; many of them would vote with their feet and simply move; call them “tax Climate refugees” if you will. You cannot force people to work.
If I could figure out how to earn all the money, I could possibly spend in a year, by working just two weeks out of the year, I would do exactly that; and go and enjoy myself for the other 50 weeks per year. At a 90% tax rate, only an idiot would continue to work.
And the 1950s, that period that you say was the the most economically expansive in history; was anything but that.
Maybe Dave, you are entirely unfamiliar with an event of World History, generally known as World War -II; the most completely desctructive era in world history. More global infra structure was permanently destroyed, during WW-II than in all of the conflicts that preceded it, all the way back to the age of the dinosaurs.
So the 1950s were fully occupied dealing with two World situations. The need to replace the trillions of dollars of world infrastructure that was gone for even; and the equally sapping and devastating rise of the Soviet Union as a world threat.
All of that, was the consequences, of following pied pipers, who like you believe that they know better than the people themsleves do, and want to remake the world in their image.
The 1950s was an age of recovery; it most certainly was not an age of prosperity.
And I lived throught that era Dave; did you ? It was not untill the Reagan-Thatcher era, that the world was able to shrug off the millstone of the Soviet Union; and start to really move towards economic expansion. that goal is still thwarted by the menace of Communist Red China; a regime, who like you believes that only they know what is good for the people.
Today is Tax day Dave; you have my permission to write a check to the Federal Government for whatever you believe is your fair share of the tax burden; don’t wait for the compulsive power of the Federal treasury to force you to do it; be pro-active and lead by example. And if you get to be ten years past the Social Security retirement age, and you are still having to work just to pay your taxes, and have anything left over; yopu might reconsider, your opinion of what everybodfy else should pay in taxes.
People with vast fortunes get to not pay the top marginal tax rates, for the simple reason, that they stop doing taxable enterprise; and the country is worse off, because of their enforced idleness.
If Times subscriptions are dropping, just think on sheer amounts of trees that will not be cut down to be used as paper for said magazines. I wonder if they can get CO2 credits for this, and if so, can they use it for profit?