A commentary by David Sirota on the wealthy paying a surtax for UHC

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
July 25, 2009

Here's a truism: The wealthiest 1 percent have never had it so good.

According to government figures, 1-percenters' share of America's total income is the highest it's been since 1929, and their tax rates are the lowest they've faced in two decades. Through bonuses, many 1-percenters will profit from the $23 trillion in bailout largesse the Treasury Department now says could be headed to financial firms. And most of them benefit from IRS decisions to reduce millionaire audits and collect zero taxes from the majority of major corporations.

But what really makes the ultra-wealthy so fortunate, what truly separates this moment from a run-of-the-mill Gilded Age, is the unprecedented protection the 1-percenters have bought for themselves on the most pressing issues.

To review: With 22,000 Americans dying each year because they lack health insurance, Congress is considering universal healthcare legislation financed by a surcharge on income above $280,000 -- that is, a levy almost exclusively on 1-percenters. This surtax would graze just 5 percent of small businesses and would recoup only part of the $700 billion the 1-percenters received from the Bush tax cuts. In fact, it is so minuscule, those making $1 million annually would pay just $9,000 more in taxes every year -- or nine-tenths of 1 percent of their 12-month haul.

Nonetheless, the 1-percenters have deployed an army to destroy the initiative before it makes progress.

The foot soldiers are the Land Rover Liberals. These Democratic lawmakers secure their lefty labels by wearing pink-ribbon lapel pins and supporting good causes like abortion rights. However, being affluent and/or from affluent districts, they routinely drive their luxury cars over middle-class economic interests. Hence, this week's letter from Democratic dot-com tycoon Rep. Jared Polis, of Boulder, Colo., and other Land Rover Liberals calling for the surtax's death.

Echoing that demand are the Corrupt Cowboys -- those like Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who come from the heartland's culturally conservative and economically impoverished locales. These cavalrymen in both parties quietly build insurmountable campaign war chests as the biggest corporate fundraisers in Congress. At the same time, they publicly preen as jes' folks, make twangy references to "voters back home," and now promise to kill the healthcare surtax because they say that's what their communities want. Cash payoffs made, reelections purchased, the absurd story somehow goes that because blue-collar constituents in Flyover America like guns and love Jesus, they must also reflexively adore politicians who defend 1-percenters' bounty.

That fantastical fairly tale, of course, couldn't exist without the Millionaire Media -- the elite journalists and opinion-mongers who represent corporate media conglomerates and/or are themselves extremely wealthy. Ignoring all the data about inequality, they legitimize the assertions of the 1-percenters' first two battalions, while actually claiming America's fat cats are unfairly persecuted.

For example, Washington Post editors deride surtax proponents for allegedly believing "the rich alone can fund government." Likewise, Wall Street Journal correspondent Jonathan Weisman wonders why the surtax "soak(s) the rich" by unduly "lumping all of the problems of the finances of the United States on 1 percent of (its) households." And most brazenly, NBC's Meredith Vieira asks President Obama why the surtax is intent on "punishing the rich."

For his part, Obama has responded with characteristic coolness -- and a powerful counterstrike. "No, it's not punishing the rich," he said. "If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that's part of being a community."

If any volley can thwart this latest attack of the 1-percenters, it is that simple idea.

As the wealthy get an increasingly extreme share of the wealth of the nation, their burden for paying the bills should increase.

Their having the greatest share of the nation's income since 1929 belies the propaganda about their having it so terrible - the message we hear more the richer they get.

While some people will reflexively argue against the surtax advocated above, I'd bet that many of those people if asked ot come up with their own numbers first on what a fair share is might come up with numbers costing the rich more than the article describes. BTW, I've little use for the 'Land Rover Democrats' described in the article.

The contrast in the commentary between the facts how well the rich are doing with the rhetoric aboiut how abused they are helps correct wrongs in the 'debate'.

If people would like to see th egap grow - the rich much richer than now and the rest poorer, they can do nothing, and get it, since we're going that direction.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Yea yea yea, sit on your ass, blame "the rich", and wait for Obama to waive his magic wand and fix all our problems.

If it were Obama's goal, or the Democrat's goal, to see that those too poor to afford insurance could have it, it would have taken just ~$30 billion from the $800 billion "stimulus" plan which hasn't done a lick to create jobs, to buy insurance for those too poor to afford it.

Why the fuck should "the rich" pay for health insurance of others just because Craig says they should? Stop trying to pretend you're the all-knowing god of how a utopia can be created and ran.



If you and the rest of the "progressives" have their way health care will no longer be your number one crisis threatening the economy, it will be jobs. You cannot disincentivize wealth to the extent you want and expect there to be any job growth.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Yea yea yea go ahead and blame the rich.

If it were Obama's goal, or the Democrat's goal, to see that those too poor to afford insurance could have it, it would have taken just ~$30 billion from the $800 billion "stimulus" plan which hasn't done a lick to create jobs, to buy insurance for those too poor to afford it.

Why the fuck should "the rich" pay for health insurance of others just because Craig says they should?

Stop trying to pretend you're the all-knowing god of how a utopia can be created.



If you and the rest of the "progressives" have their way health care will no longer be the number one crisis threatening the economy, it will be jobs. You cannot disincentivize wealth to the extent you want and expect there to be job growth.

No one has blamed the Rich.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
^^^
Craig always does. This whole thread is just another take on how he believes the rich are too rich for the good of the country.

If you don't recognize it just because you love his ideology too, that's your problem.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
Originally posted by: cubby1223
^^^
Craig always does. This whole thread is just another take on how he believes the rich are too rich for the good of the country.

If you don't recognize it just because you love his ideology too, that's your problem.

ho hum.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234

As the wealthy get an increasingly extreme share of the wealth of the nation, their burden for paying the bills should increase.

Their having the greatest share of the nation's income since 1929 belies the propaganda about their having it so terrible - the message we hear more the richer they get.

While some people will reflexively argue against the surtax advocated above, I'd bet that many of those people if asked ot come up with their own numbers first on what a fair share is might come up with numbers costing the rich more than the article describes. BTW, I've little use for the 'Land Rover Democrats' described in the article.

The contrast in the commentary between the facts how well the rich are doing with the rhetoric aboiut how abused they are helps correct wrongs in the 'debate'.

If people would like to see the gap grow - the rich much richer than now and the rest poorer, they can do nothing, and get it, since we're going that direction.

While you have some good points, the idea that the rich should be paying more as their wealth increases is something that you can only accept if you're fully into the whole wealth redistributing thing. While a surtax on the rich does make the most sense, in terms of paying for UHC, I also cannot blame the rich. If we start making the burden of UHC almost exclusive to rich people, then maybe we'll do the same with other government endevors along the way.

The rich really don't want to be forced to fully fund government projects, no matter how good they are for the country. And I cannot blame them one bit. You shouldn't either. It's not a greed thing (for many at least), it's the principle of the matter.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
"For his part, Obama has responded with characteristic coolness -- and a powerful counterstrike. "No, it's not punishing the rich," he said. "If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that's part of being a community."

Haha as if.

A "bunch of families" out there will lose their jobs because of (another) payroll hike that will force employers to cut staff (esp restaurants etc). Then there is cap and charade that will cause huge utility bill and fuel increases for families. Then they want a VAT tax like Europe that drives price up 15 - 17%. People are going to get reamed. Even the Chinese are pooping their trousers over what they see Obama doing.

Of course the health-care would be rationed/capped and of inferior quality. An MD shortage will arise and waiting lists will grow. Innovation will ceases etc.

Obama is the working stiff's worst nightmare parading as a socialist wet dream. We already know how Obama's "new ideas" work because they are old socialistic ideas that have at best bred hardship and economic demoralization and at worst got people killed. Resentment is the losers anger and it's the attitude of resentment that feuls Obama and the people that want to wage war on prosperity pretending its a war on poverty. The only "powerful counterstrikes" leveled by Obama have been aimed at private sector, freedom and the Constitution. Obama & Co are the kind of abusive leaders the founders feared when they separated powers.
 

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is the working stiff's worst nightmare parading as a socialist wet dream. We already know how Obama's "new ideas" work because they are old socialistic ideas that have at best bred hardship and economic demoralization and at worst got people killed. Resentment is the losers anger and it's the attitude of resentment that feuls Obama and the people that want to wage war on prosperity pretending its a war on poverty. The only "powerful counterstrikes" leveled by Obama have been aimed at private sector, freedom and the Constitution. Obama & Co are the kind of abusive leaders the founders feared when they separated powers.

Honest to goodness I have never been able to sum up how I feel about Obama accurately, until I read that. Absolutely spot-on.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,541
6,705
126
Originally posted by: MrMatt
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is the working stiff's worst nightmare parading as a socialist wet dream. We already know how Obama's "new ideas" work because they are old socialistic ideas that have at best bred hardship and economic demoralization and at worst got people killed. Resentment is the losers anger and it's the attitude of resentment that feuls Obama and the people that want to wage war on prosperity pretending its a war on poverty. The only "powerful counterstrikes" leveled by Obama have been aimed at private sector, freedom and the Constitution. Obama & Co are the kind of abusive leaders the founders feared when they separated powers.

Honest to goodness I have never been able to sum up how I feel about Obama accurately, until I read that. Absolutely spot-on.

MrMatt goes AssHat.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: MrMatt
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is the working stiff's worst nightmare parading as a socialist wet dream. We already know how Obama's "new ideas" work because they are old socialistic ideas that have at best bred hardship and economic demoralization and at worst got people killed. Resentment is the losers anger and it's the attitude of resentment that feuls Obama and the people that want to wage war on prosperity pretending its a war on poverty. The only "powerful counterstrikes" leveled by Obama have been aimed at private sector, freedom and the Constitution. Obama & Co are the kind of abusive leaders the founders feared when they separated powers.

Honest to goodness I have never been able to sum up how I feel about Obama accurately, until I read that. Absolutely spot-on.

MrMatt goes AssHat.
I feel your mind is capable of far more than you use it for on P&N. If you'd shift your insult:helpful ideas ratio from around 99:1 to even 80:20 I'd like to see what you have to say.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: themusgrat
Originally posted by: Craig234

As the wealthy get an increasingly extreme share of the wealth of the nation, their burden for paying the bills should increase.

Their having the greatest share of the nation's income since 1929 belies the propaganda about their having it so terrible - the message we hear more the richer they get.

While some people will reflexively argue against the surtax advocated above, I'd bet that many of those people if asked ot come up with their own numbers first on what a fair share is might come up with numbers costing the rich more than the article describes. BTW, I've little use for the 'Land Rover Democrats' described in the article.

The contrast in the commentary between the facts how well the rich are doing with the rhetoric aboiut how abused they are helps correct wrongs in the 'debate'.

If people would like to see the gap grow - the rich much richer than now and the rest poorer, they can do nothing, and get it, since we're going that direction.

While you have some good points, the idea that the rich should be paying more as their wealth increases is something that you can only accept if you're fully into the whole wealth redistributing thing. While a surtax on the rich does make the most sense, in terms of paying for UHC, I also cannot blame the rich. If we start making the burden of UHC almost exclusive to rich people, then maybe we'll do the same with other government endevors along the way.

The rich really don't want to be forced to fully fund government projects, no matter how good they are for the country. And I cannot blame them one bit. You shouldn't either. It's not a greed thing (for many at least), it's the principle of the matter.

He is.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
I know, and it's a decent opinion to have, completely idealistic, unreasonable, and naive, but there's not many ways to really fault the belief. I guess the difference between realism and idealism.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
I think Obama meant to say commune, not community: "that's part of being a community."

If we did not have all of this corruption, bailouts, fat cat deals, revolving door fascist politics people would not be so inclined to embrace socialism.


"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams


"Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility,
prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done
or ever will do good."
John Adams
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: cubby1223
^^^
Craig always does. This whole thread is just another take on how he believes the rich are too rich for the good of the country.

If you don't recognize it just because you love his ideology too, that's your problem.

There's some evidence that this is indeed true. When wealth concentrations reach certain points bad things happen to the economy. I wish I could link to the page that had the graph that pretty clearly demonstrates this but I didn't save it and I'll probably never find it again.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: cubby1223
^^^
Craig always does. This whole thread is just another take on how he believes the rich are too rich for the good of the country.

If you don't recognize it just because you love his ideology too, that's your problem.

There's some evidence that this is indeed true. When wealth concentrations reach certain points bad things happen to the economy. I wish I could link to the page that had the graph that pretty clearly demonstrates this but I didn't save it and I'll probably never find it again.

Then how about you point us to evidence that equal distribution of wealth is good for a society?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: cubby1223
^^^
Craig always does. This whole thread is just another take on how he believes the rich are too rich for the good of the country.
If you don't recognize it just because you love his ideology too, that's your problem.

WOW! The part I bolded does sum up the major problem in America. Thanks cubby!:thumbsup:
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: cubby1223
^^^
Craig always does. This whole thread is just another take on how he believes the rich are too rich for the good of the country.

If you don't recognize it just because you love his ideology too, that's your problem.

There's some evidence that this is indeed true. When wealth concentrations reach certain points bad things happen to the economy. I wish I could link to the page that had the graph that pretty clearly demonstrates this but I didn't save it and I'll probably never find it again.

Then how about you point us to evidence that equal distribution of wealth is good for a society?

Read below.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Clearly the rich getting richer, the middle class shrinking, and healthcare costs far outpacing inflation is a tenable situation that doesn't need the rich pitching in a little extra more. This is what republicans believe.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: cubby1223
^^^
Craig always does. This whole thread is just another take on how he believes the rich are too rich for the good of the country.

If you don't recognize it just because you love his ideology too, that's your problem.

There's some evidence that this is indeed true. When wealth concentrations reach certain points bad things happen to the economy. I wish I could link to the page that had the graph that pretty clearly demonstrates this but I didn't save it and I'll probably never find it again.

Then how about you point us to evidence that equal distribution of wealth is good for a society?

I don't have any nor would I argue it. Why are so many people stuck in "if not A then B' thinking? There are a whole lot more letters in the alphabet.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: cubby1223
^^^
Craig always does. This whole thread is just another take on how he believes the rich are too rich for the good of the country.

If you don't recognize it just because you love his ideology too, that's your problem.

There's some evidence that this is indeed true. When wealth concentrations reach certain points bad things happen to the economy. I wish I could link to the page that had the graph that pretty clearly demonstrates this but I didn't save it and I'll probably never find it again.

Then how about you point us to evidence that equal distribution of wealth is good for a society?

Read below.

Evidence not found. No one EVER payed 90% taxes....and I dont think life was any better 50 years ago either....
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
The big problem for 1-percenters is that they still only get 1 vote, just like the poorest American citizen.

We voted for a candidate who wanted health care reform, voted to give him huge majorities in Congress, and now our votes will bear fruit over the next four to eight years.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The big problem for 1-percenters is that they still only get 1 vote, just like the poorest American citizen.

We voted for a candidate who wanted health care reform, voted to give him huge majorities in Congress, and now our votes will bear fruit over the next four to eight years.

And we have yet to see anything substantial get anywhere close to being done. Obama isnt going to abandon his own (the rich). It aint gonna happen.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The big problem for 1-percenters is that they still only get 1 vote, just like the poorest American citizen.

We voted for a candidate who wanted health care reform, voted to give him huge majorities in Congress, and now our votes will bear fruit over the next four to eight years.

And we have yet to see anything substantial get anywhere close to being done. Obama isnt going to abandon his own (the rich). It aint gonna happen.

haha, come on man, get real.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The big problem for 1-percenters is that they still only get 1 vote, just like the poorest American citizen.

We voted for a candidate who wanted health care reform, voted to give him huge majorities in Congress, and now our votes will bear fruit over the next four to eight years.

And we have yet to see anything substantial get anywhere close to being done. Obama isnt going to abandon his own (the rich). It aint gonna happen.

haha, come on man, get real.

*shrug* until we see otherwise, there is ZERO reason to believe he will do anything but protect them. But he sure talks a good game doesnt he ;)