Obama Administration Counters Chase CEO Statement On Taxing The Rich

After JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon complained over how the rich have to pay so much in income taxes, claiming he and his fellow wealthy “wage-earners” end up shelling out 50% of their incomes to the government, we took the chance to ask the White House what they thought of that.

Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Brian Deese explains that the country’s “most fortunate” — around 300,000 of the wealthiest (we’re looking at you, Dimon) — would accept a “fiscally responsible” small increase in taxes in order to lower taxes for 160 million American families, to the tune of an additional $1,500 in the pockets of those families.

“It would help support the economy and support growth,” said Deese, “And would be among the most effective bang for the buck — this targets families most likely to go out and use that money. Congress will not leave until that’s finished.”

As to Dimon’s complaints that the rich are painted as bad guys, Deese simply pointed out the challenges posed by the inequality of wealth in this country. He says between 2001 and 2008, the share of income for the wealthiest few grew, while the median income for a typical family fell for the first time during an economic expansion since World War II.

“Many of the wealthiest Americans have come forward and said they’d happily pay more taxes if it meant we had the right economic policies in this country,” said Deese.

Step right up, Mr. Dimon!

Previously: Chase CEO Wants Everyone To Lay Off On Hating Rich People

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. dolemite says:

    I don’t want the rich to pay more taxes. I want the rich to pay me fair wages for the work/time I put in. When I get more money, I buy microwaves, fridges, books, cds, movies, and video games. When the government gets it, it gets funneled back into pork projects for friends/families of politicians and $300 hammers.

    • tsumeone says:

      The rich won’t do that, though. We lowered their taxes. That’s the premise of “trickle down economics” which have proven time and time again not to work. This is the alternative.

    • alstein says:

      That won’t work. They’d just hire overseas in that case. The key is to make your wages more valuable.

    • rob391013 says:

      So in summary: “Waaah, I’m entitled to more money because I want to buy more things.”

      • dolemite says:

        My buying more things allows you to buy more things. See how economics work?

        • Bsamm09 says:

          Why isn’t the minimum wage $50k then?

          • kujospam says:

            It will be.

            • SexCpotatoes says:

              The minimum wage will hit $50k per year eventually, as soon as the poverty level for your family hits $100k per year

              • Bsamm09 says:

                Why wait? Why not make it now? Could it be that the sudden increase in labor costs would drive prices up and put the minimum wage earners in the same position they were before? Although they have more money, they cannot purchase more goods. The middle class will be screwed the most as their wages are far more sticky than minimum wage earners.

                • shepd says:

                  Nope, that won’t happen. I argued that minimum wage drives prices of certain goods and was flamed to hell and back for it here.

                  According to consumerist-think, if you set minimum wage higher, money falls from the clouds and everyone has rainbows shooting out their ass.

        • darcmosch says:

          Yup, everybody gets paid when someone buys something, that’s why everyone’s been quitting there jobs! Wait… that doesn’t sound right.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      Chances are, you are getting paid a fair wage…and if you think that’s not the case, I’m positive there’s somebody standing in line for your job that will be happy to do it for the wage you’re making now. Maybe less.

      If you want to make more than a fair wage, the solution is easy. Join a union.

      • jason1111 says:

        That’s the rub. Fair in a free market sense is whatever the market will bear. If, for instance, you own a business and have piles and piles of money and want to use it in a way that allows to you make even more money, you might “invest” some of it in re-election campaigns, hoping that it will influence policy in a way that drives down the market for wages (weakening unions, eliminating the minimum wage, etc).

        If policy goes the other way – unions are strengthened, workers rights are increased, benefits are mandated – the fair wage may be much higher.

        Taxing the rich isn’t something I would recommend during a recession (especially with real 10 year yield on gov debt hovering somewhere around zero) but it is a way to pay for things that will stimulate the economy while at the same time reducing the power and policy influence of the tiny percentage of people at the top.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Fair is not defined as what the market will bear.

          During the Great Depression, the market bore pennies a day wages. That wasn’t fair or a livable wage.

          • jason1111 says:

            I know an I agree. But if you ask anyone running for the GOP nomination what a fair wage is they will probably answer with some sort of free market talking point.

      • rlmiller007 says:

        Except unions driving up costs to ridiculous levels is what has caused/causes problems in the economy. Before you go into a rant I know this from personal experience and as my brother once said ( of his $35 an hour union wage) “No one is worth that kinda money”. I have been in a union and those are the laziest people in the entire work force.

      • Jevia says:

        How can you say he’s probably paid a “fair wage” when chances are the CEO/Exec board of whatever company he works for froze wages for the workers, while giving themselves big raises/bonuses because the wage freeze on the workers increased the stock price so the stock holders get an extra $.50 per share dividend?

        • Bsamm09 says:

          Wal-mart workers have a good stock purchase plan:

          Associate Stock Purchase Plan with a company match of 15% up to the first $1,800 purchased each Plan year.

      • OnePumpChump says:

        Corporations are unions for capital.

    • rlmiller007 says:

      Smartest thing anyone has ever said on any blog.

      • FatLynn says:

        No, that’s called trickle-down economics. It doesn’t work. We’ve been trying it since the Reagan administration.

        • eldergias says:

          Its not a matter of which system works and which doesn’t, because literally every tax system ever implemented has had its problems. It’s a matter of which system has fewer problems than the other systems. I am not saying that I know which system is the best, but I would say that I don’t think that trickle-down is the worst, so I wouldn’t write it off. Keep in mind, we haven’t implemented a really strict trickle-down system, so we don’t yet know it doesn’t work, we just know that the partial measures we have taken in that regard have not worked.

          • BobOki says:

            As we see record company profits at the same time we continue to hear about 30/40/50% layoffs at large companies, I think we can safely assume trickle-down does not work.

        • tsukiotoshi says:

          I think that trickle-down economics doesn’t work not because people don’t buy more when they make more money but that the “job creators” get more money and don’t, as a general rule, actually pay significantly better wages. That has been my understanding but I am always open to being enlightened.

    • SonicPhoenix says:

      It’d be nice wouldn’t it? But in the absence of them voluntarily paying better wages I’ll willingly settle for them paying a greater portion of the tax burden.

      • Akuma Matata says:

        more than the 40% of the burden they currently hold?

        • LanMan04 says:

          ROFL. You’re funny. (a) Yes, and (b) none of them pay close to 40%.

        • xanxer says:

          Before to late 60′s and 70′s take rates for the super rich were clsoe to 90% and still maintained their cushy lifestyles.

          • Bsamm09 says:

            Here are the brackets when the top tax rate was 92%. You want to go back to these golden days

            Individual Income Tax Parameters
            Married Filing Jointly
            1952-1953

            Taxable Income Rate

            $0 - $4,000 22.2%
            $4,000 - $8,000 24.6%
            $8,000 - $12,000 29.0%
            $12,000 - $16,000 34.0%
            $16,000 - $20,000 38.0%

            $20,000 - $24,000 42.0%
            $24,000 - $28,000 48.0%
            $28,000 - $32,000 53.0%
            $32,000 - $36,000 56.0%
            $36,000 - $40,000 59.0%

            $40,000 - $44,000 62.0%
            $44,000 - $52,000 66.0%
            $52,000 - $64,000 67.0%
            $64,000 - $76,000 68.0%
            $76,000 - $88,000 72.0%

            $88,000 - $100,000 75.0%
            $100,000 - $120,000 77.0%
            $120,000 - $140,000 80.0%
            $140,000 - $160,000 83.0%
            $160,000 - $180,000 85.0%

            $180,000 - $200,000 88.0%
            $200,000 - $300,000 90.0%
            $300,000 - $400,000 91.0%
            $400,000 - and overa 92.0%

            • chargernj says:

              well, you haven’t adjusted the chart for inflation. Someone earning $52,000 in 1952, would be earning $430,087 in 2100.
              http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

              That guy should be paying at least 66% yet he only pays about 35%. Also that is the same rate that millionaires pay.

              So to answer you question, yes we should go back to 1952 tax rates, adjusted for inflation of course.

        • chargernj says:

          considering they have 90% of the wealth, yes.

    • darcmosch says:

      It can also do good, just like how trickle down economics has its downsides too. I kind of like i that the FDA inspects my meat, my water gets processed, imports are checked for harmful products. If I remember correctly, didn’t the government have to set up superfund sites because businesses didn’t want to have to pay the extra costs to properly dispose of their waste? I think I’d rather give a little more money to the government to fund some of these programs. Yes, some money will get wasted on somebody’s pet project, but it isn’t always negative. You are biased too much toward business and see the government as a waste. Not true. The government is a way to help bring in new ideas and stimulate growth. They make the initial investment, then those new businesses will employ new people, allowing them to buy money. These folks pay taxes and the process starts all over again. We need all 3 working in tandem or else the system won’t work. Europe had too much government, we have too much business. Canada did it just right. Who new our big bro up north was so good at balancing?

    • theperchik says:

      Define fair. If the job was not paying enough no one would take the job. So since the role is filled it is a fair wage. That’s how the market works. If you make X but you feel you should get paid Y, and Y is indeed a fair market salary, you should be able to find the same job elsewhere paying Y. If not…your salary is fair.

      • LanMan04 says:

        Define fair. If the job was not paying enough no one would take the job.
        —————
        Everyone has to eat, pal.

      • teamplur says:

        If that were true we wouldn’t need a federal minimum wage because ‘no one would take a job that didn’t pay fair’.
        What planet do you live on?
        If I need to feed my kids and the only job I can get is $10 a day shoveling shit, Damn it my kids are gonna eat. That doesn’t make it right, or fair.

    • SamiJ says:

      Huh. I just want the rich to pay more taxes. And I want the super rich to pay super taxes. And I want taxes on captial gains raised. And I’d like them to stop whining about how they are being targeted. They only reason the rich get such support from congress is because 83% of congress are millionaires. And most of those became millionaires after they were elected.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      So you want the rich to earn less. Just another way of saying the same thing.

      • OutPastPluto says:

        Actually, I do. Although this mainly includes bankers that get big fat bonuses even while they are being bailed out by the federal government after destroying the economy. This also goes for CEOs that get multi-millon dollar salaries regardless of how well they do their job. This applies to major stakeholders in corporations that are “too big to fail” and must continually be also bailed out by the government.

        Applying a little sanity and forcing some measure of accountability on the 1% could be beneficial all around.

        So they get that 20 caret diamond instead of the 40 caret one.

      • Rhinoguy says:

        Reductio ad absurdum. Smooth argument.

      • Shouhdes says:

        I absolutely want the rich to earn less. oprah has to damn much money.

  2. FrugalFreak says:

    And the tea party parrot flies in in 3. 2. 1..

    It isn’t a socialistic idea people, It’s a quit hogging all the money so the divide doesn’t grow and we don’t fall under the complete control of corporatism some day. Repair the American dream chance for all, not just those with mass wealth. To repair this country it’s gonna take capital, but that doesn’t mean we will sign over our lives to You in exchange for it.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      You are right. And, it’s simple economics. There is only so much to go around. If the uber rich have 50%, the other 99% of us must share the remaining 50%. If they somehow get control of 80%, we all must share the remaining 20%. It isn’t just a case of us needing to work harder, or do more. It’s a case of us needing to figure out how to take more from the rich so we can have a bigger share. If they won’t pay it directly out as wages, or spend it to put into the economy so other businesses make more money and more hiring can be done and we can earn it, taxation is one of the other, very valid ways to get that money.

      • Matthew PK says:

        You’re wrong. The wealthy compete for more wealth just like you do. Your goal is to be more competitive. But your axiom is invalid. Wealth is not some finite thing that they can “take all of”.

        • David Doe says:

          Your wrong, “wealth” is a measure of resources, all resources on this planet are finite. The stupid libtard talking point that wealth is unlimited is moronic perhaps someday we will have unlimited resources but not yet, and not in the foreseeable future.

          • Matthew PK says:

            Wealth is derived from making resources more valuable. The software on a plastic CD is more valuable than the plastic CD. Seems to me like you’re stuck in mercantilism-thought.

          • BobOki says:

            I would like to make a petition on Consumerist for the banning of political buzz words. Far too often on many sites I see people throw around political buzz words having no clue at all to their meaning, or at a minimum to use as a crutch to get out of having to have real debate. Words like “Socialism”, “Liberal”, and “Conservative”, and hell why not, “Communisim” are used so often here and exchanged for each other I get the VERY real impression that nearly no one actually knows what they mean.

            I would like to see Consumerist BAN the usage of the top 10 political buzz words in effort to silence the ignorant, force people to bring real debate, and to possibly bring a little class back to the reply threads in any politically heated article.

            Consumerist fans, please do yourself, us, everyone in the world a favor and actually take the time to go look up the meanings to these words, they DO NOT mean what you use them to mean.

            • PlumeNoir - Thank you? No problem! says:

              Is it weird that I enjoyed this and agree so much that I want to hug you? Not a lingering hug, mind you – just a friendly one.

              • BobOki says:

                Reading it again, I probably should have done:
                “You keep using that word, I do nota think it means what you think it means…”

                Hugs delegated to sub 5 seconds are always welcome.

        • OnePumpChump says:

          They can take greater or larger shares of the total at any given time. It is the total that changes. And how that total changes can change the share that is held by certain parties.

          But while the amount of money can change without limit, what that money can buy IS finite. There’s only so much stuff, and so much time from so many people. (Except for derivatives, of course. That’s why the term “real economy” has come into popularity. But even then, there’s only so many atoms on which you can store your financial data bits.) More money and more activity can expand the willingness of people to provide services or make goods, but even then there are hard limits.

          • Akuma Matata says:

            >

            But that has no impact on your ability to earn as much as you can. Hence wealth is not a zero sum game.

      • FredKlein says:

        It’s a case of us needing to figure out how to take more from the rich so we can have a bigger share.

        Why do you deserve a bigger share???

        • SexCpotatoes says:

          Look, it’s this simple: You want everyone to pay their fair share of taxes? You pay everyone the same amount of money and deduct the taxes from all, equally. Problem solved.

          • Bsamm09 says:

            Sweet. Who wants to go to med school now? I’d much rather find the easiest job available since it pays the same as one that takes years to work at.

      • Me - now with more humidity says:

        BS. Money expands and contracts. It is not finite.

    • Matthew PK says:

      What you fail to realize is that expansionism of government (which is a socialist-pillar) is *what has enabled* monetary influence in Washington to be so powerful.
      Funny.. this is how all socialisms/communisms have failed as well: when government is given extensive authority the impact of its dishonesty and poor efficiency is greater.
      What you call corporatism I called “realistic socialism” because it is how all failed socialist systems have ended.

      • AstroPig7 says:

        Hey, I like playing with words, too! Maybe we can start calling public roads “socialist pathways”. As for the rest of your post, where was the expansion of government mentioned in the original article or FrugalFreak’s post?

        • Matthew PK says:

          It’s just ironic that he’s advocating wealth redistribution as an escape from “corporatism” when it was government expansionism and wealth control policies that got us here (in part).

          I’m not suggesting there is no role for government. Roads are a great example. But not you’ve extended the false dilemma. We don’t have to choose between a reaching government we have today and a society with no roads.

          • AstroPig7 says:

            I disagree. While those factors have magnified the damage, they should only share blame if they cause more harm than good. The human factor is the causative agent, namely the tendency of some people to be more beholden to cash and cronyism than (the majority of) their constituents. An expanded government may be necessary for a complex society like the U.S., although I agree there are serious inefficiencies and redundancies that should be eliminated. You’ve read too much into my post if you took a false dilemma from it.

        • shepd says:

          Actually, roads are one of the least socialist things out there. They are (supposed) to be paid for directly by users via fuel taxes and even better, tolls.

          If you never drive on a road, you should, in theory, have never paid for it.

          • calicopaisley says:

            Um what? “Should never have paid for it” when you acknowledge tolls and fuel taxes? So how is it that increasing the amount of middlemen make this ‘not count’?

            The highways in my state were supposed to have paid for themselves by now, but we’re still paying tolls to get on the highway. It is what it is, but call a spade a spade for dog’s sake.

            • shepd says:

              Socialism requires everyone pay for things, even those who will never use them, or are even banned from using them.

              Terribly managed things just require money to be wasted. I’m with you on the roads being incredibly poorly managed just about everywhere. :-)

  3. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    “Many of the wealthiest Americans have come forward and said they’d happily pay more taxes if it meant we had the right economic policies in this country,” said Deese.

    Then write a check to the IRS. No one is stopping you.

    • TheUncleBob says:

      Forget the IRS…

      All you wealthy folks who have come forward asking to pay more money:

      https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

      The federal government has you covered – a convient website where you can instantly (and securely) donate as much money as you’d like towards paying down the debt. It’s legit and everything. Won’t take more than a minute either.

      • zibby says:

        That’s sort of the problem, though…the reason it’s so hard to get people to ante up these days is that they figure most of their money is going to debt service, transfer payments, and bombs. That stuff isn’t any fun, people want to see an awesome bridge, or another EPCOT center or something.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      They know they can contribute more on their own, but that’s not the point. Unless tax policy is changed to force the rest of the wealthy to contribute, those who do contribute won’t have much of an effect.

    • 8bithero says:

      They just can’t do that. It doesn’t work that way.

      There’s a reason you get a tax return if you pay too much in taxes.

    • Lt. Coke says:

      I want to pay more taxes! I make slightly above minimum wage, but I would be -pleased- if the government took more of it and used it to improve the economy. Why am I not doing this already? What’s my extra few hundred a year going to do? It’s basically pointless if it’s just me, or if it’s just you, me, and that one guy with the secretary. Living in a civilized society requires shared sacrifice; we all give up our few hundred dollars, and we all benefit from it’s allocation.

      That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway. If you want to be a slave to oligarchs, and you subscribe to Just World Hypothesis Monthly, please feel free to disregard civilization, and acquire a boat to Somalia – a country that has no need for a second amendment. The free market has already guaranteed access to guns. And bullets to the skull, but, you know. Freedom isn’t free.

    • UberGeek says:

      I am by no means wealthy (by American standards) but would “happily pay more taxes if it meant we had the right economic policies in this country,” Problem is that more taxes doesn’t mean we’ll have the right economic policies — it just means we’ll pay higher taxes. Find a real solution to our fiscal problems and I’ll happily participate with everyone else.

  4. IPPlanMan says:

    If anyone feels that their taxes aren’t high enough, feel free to pay more right here anytime you want:

    https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

    Check or Charge? Don’t just say that you want do. Do it and prove it.

    • MrEvil says:

      That only covers the public debt, it doesn’t provide any additional revenues for budgeting purposes.

      • IPPlanMan says:

        You either want to pay it or not… If you want to do something about revenues, run for President or Congress….

        http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

        Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

        The Bureau of the Public Debt may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of:

        Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public.
        An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public.
        Other intangible personal property made only on the condition that the property is sold and the proceeds from the sale used to reduce the public debt.
        Gifts to reduce debt held by the public may be inter vivos gifts or testamentary bequests.

        The fiscal year to date information includes total gifts received for the months of October through September. For the years 1996 and 1997, monthly data is not available.

      • Actionable Mango says:

        That’s effectively the same thing, with a time delay. Imagine if someone paid off all your credit cards, your car loan, your mortgage, whatever. Clearly that would affect your spending.

    • TasteyCat says:

      In Massachusetts, by a margin of 59%-41%, voters decided to lower the tax rate from 5.85% to 5%. To allow that 41% to put their money where their mouth was, the option of paying the old 5.85% was provided on tax returns.

      Over 3 million tax returns are filed in the state each year. In 2008, 1953 people opted to pay the higher tax rate.

    • OnePumpChump says:

      Like trying to drink the ocean with a straw. It’s meaningless unless you get a lot more straws into it. So there’s no damn point going it alone…and you’re only going to be sure of getting enough to make it worth it to volunteer if you’ve got force behind you.

  5. Matthew PK says:

    The issue is this false dilemma. The federal government isn’t going to use a tax hike to pay off mounting debts, they’re going to use it (as they always have) as a rationale to borrow more.

    Through the ups and the downs they still spent more than they had. If they take in a dollar they spend a buck twenty. If we let them take a buck twenty they’ll spent a buck fourty four

    • darklighter says:

      That’s not true at all. How short is your memory? From 1998 to 2001, there was a federal budget surplus that peaked at 236.2 billion dollars in 2000.

      • Matthew PK says:

        Except that budget surplus did not include long-term liabilities which they added during the boom.
        They had a windfall, which they used to increase their long-term liabilities. Then, when growth didn’t continue in line (and nobody expected it to, that’s not how booms work) they were left with the bill.

        • Thalia says:

          Actually, it was used to reduce the debt.

          • Matthew PK says:

            Actually, you should look at the GAO and CBO numbers for the changes in long-term medicare/ss spending during that period.

            “Paying down national debt” is a measure of outstanding bonds (in significant part). The point is how many bonds they’ll have to sell in the future to meet their obligations.

          • Akuma Matata says:

            gov’t hasn’t reduced the publicly held debt in real terms since we’ve basically had a national debt. Our politicians are addicted to spending what we don’t have because they have constituents who don’t want to understand how bad the system really is

      • SonicPhoenix says:

        Actually, there was a _projected_ surplus. Looking at the national public debt during those years it went up in every year. This was due to “emergency” spending bills that fell outside of the official budget.

    • lucky13 says:

      Exactly. And all the while they will tell us that we not only need to save more but spend more as well to support the new consumer-based American economy.

      We used to MAKE stuff and sell it to the rest of the world…now the rest of the world makes stuff and we have to borrow money from them to buy the stuff we used to make. Farking bastidges!

      • Matthew PK says:

        Don’t get ahead of yourself. We make a whole lot of stuff. The issue is our dependence on cheap credit and absolutely no savings. Our trade balance needs work, but we still have tremendous exports… Our problem is that we have trouble making this country hospitable to global businesess.

      • BluePlastic says:

        I believe that should be fargin bastidges. :)

  6. TasteyCat says:

    Okay. Raise their taxes. What do you do next time you refuse to cut spending that’s $1 trillion higher than it was in 2008? Raise them again? To what point? 50%? 75%? 110%?

    Robbery from the to be bankrupt before I retire social security fund aside, I haven’t seen any taxation that’s favorable to me as one of the 53% lately.

    • pythonspam says:

      If you are one of the 52% that pays income taxes and makes less than (an AGI of) $343,927, then you are paying more than your fair share of income taxes. However, you most likely take advantage of a number of tax breaks in terms of deductions. Has there been any tax relief for you lately?
      We can’t speak to that, but I’ll bet your EFFECTIVE tax rate was higher than a great many of the 1%. A majority of their income (as a group) comes from Capital Gains income (long-term) which is taxed at a historical low of 15% (top marginal rate) instead of the brackets utilized for wages/salary that the large majority of Americans uses to pay taxes.

      • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

        The Capital Gains tax is low because of the corporate tax. It’s a tax on money that has already been taxed. If you want to increase the capital gains tax, you need to lower the corporate tax. But just mentioning “lower the corporate tax” gets people frothing at the mouth.

        • LanMan04 says:

          If you want to increase the capital gains tax, you need to lower the corporate tax.
          ————–
          Why?

  7. EllenRose says:

    The chief problem with “taxing the rich” is simple: the government will keep lowering the amount of cash it takes to be ‘rich’. Sooner or later, they’ll come for my retirement savings.

    • FatLynn says:

      You seem unclear on the definition of “income”.

      • eldergias says:

        No, I get what he is saying. There have been times I have considered that the government might one day decide it was “necessary” to demand all private retirement fund deposits be appropriated by the government so that it is able to fund retirement for everyone. Since I am in my 20′s and have a much longer time frame, that fear looms over me (in the back of my mind) constantly. If there was ever a bill proposed to seize that money and it looked like it would pass, I would yank all my money out of my retirement accounts and deal with the penalties rather than give up my savings.

    • zibby says:

      Actually, they don’t need to do a damned thing but continue printing dollars. You’ll be “rich” before you know it! On a related note, I happened upon a silver quarter a couple weeks ago…

    • eeelaine says:

      So…because something scary bad *might* happen a bunch of links down the chain, we shouldn’t take a smart step now that will improve the economic health and welfare of our country?

      Your argument is the same as saying a starving person shouldn’t eat, so they can avoid getting food poisoning in 20 years.

  8. Scamazon says:

    Whatever happened to the good old days when the wealthy were taxed at 90% and normal minions were taxed at 15%???

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      In those good old days, rarely anyone hit that 90% mark and the highest earners supported less of the total burden than most recently…

      Look, the debate is whether the rich pay their fair share. We need to step back and break the US into brackets and decide what a fair effective tax rate for each of those groups are. Now make it that simple… say you pay 5% of your income through 50k, then 15% until 100k, then 25% until 1 million, then 30% beyond.

      Make it simple and then we won’t have these asinine debates about loopholes…

      • jason1111 says:

        The hard part isn’t figuring the rate. For the most part, income taxes already work the way you proposed. The hard part if figuring out the taxable income. There is no simple way to do that because life isn’t simple. Even if we went as far as a flat tax, millions of dollars would be spent every year by people trying to find ways to lower the amount subject to that tax.

      • prizgrizbiz says:

        The problem with the rich paying their fair share of taxes is the sometimes uncertain and always moving definition of ‘rich’ and ‘fair share’. Whatever portion the rich pay, some will say that amount is not their fair share, that is their political mantra.

    • Matthew PK says:

      Government still ran deficits.

    • Slader says:

      Better yet, whatever happened to the “good old days” when the government said that no one would be taxed over 10% of their income? Or, when you either paid taxes or didn’t pay taxes and the government did not use the income tax as another form of welfare to pay people back far more than they paid in?

    • Akuma Matata says:

      As if those taxed at 90% effectively paid that rate. Would you work for only 10 cents on the dollar? Didn’t think so.

    • Cactus Wren says:

      Reagan did, with his assurance that if taxes to the super-rich were cut, they’d build millions of factories and create JOBZANDJOBZANDJOBZ. So taxes to the super-rich were cut, middle-class incomes stayed *absolutely flat*, and the super-rich fumfuhed and said, “Well, we’d *like* to build millions of factories and create JOBZANDJOBZANDJOBZ, but, you know, *no one’s buying anything*. Because their incomes are, you know, *absolutely flat*. But thanks for the cash present!”

  9. TuxthePenguin says:

    Nevermind it will take 10 years of this new tax on the “rich” to pay for the one year extension of the payroll tax…

  10. unpolloloco says:

    Simple solution: lower the nominal tax rates and kill most deductions and credits. Government gets more money, people feel their taxes are lower.

    • FatLynn says:

      I believe one of the most-used deductions is the mortgage interest credit. Ending that now would be catastrophic.

      • Matthew PK says:

        Perhaps if Uncle Sam hadn’t artificially encouraged home speculation it wouldn’t be so harsh? Nobody ever said fixing inflationary and expansionary policy was easy.

      • Bsamm09 says:

        The mtg int deduction benefits the lower incomes way more than the rich.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        It wouldn’t be catastrophic, it simply needs to be offset elsewhere.

        Schools funds are also based on property taxes, and that model clearly doesn’t work right, either.

        • FatLynn says:

          Well, right, I’m just saying that all the “simple” solutions put forth (9-9-9 and what have you) are blind to reality.

      • azgirl says:

        Its the only real deduction I get.. don’t kill the mortgage deduction please- my alternative is to have 20 kids to make up the difference.

    • unpolloloco says:

      MOST, not all

  11. jason1111 says:

    $35 an hour is only $72,000 a year. That’s a lot if you are a checker at the grocery store, but a very reasonable amount to pay skilled labor.

    • kujospam says:

      72k depends on where you live. If you live in new york city from what I hear, you could afford an one bedroom apartment, and some food. If you go to cleveland ohio, you could have a nice size house, food, car, party a bit.

    • Earl Butz says:

      Reasonable my ass. A decent lawyer is $500/hour. A good plumber is at least $200/hour. If somebody cut my salary to $35/hour (I do corporate IT security) I’d tell them to go screw themselves and be out the door that afternoon. $35/hour is slave wages.

      • Bsamm09 says:

        Lawyers who bill at $500/hr don’t make $500/hr as their salary. There are operating costs that rate is used to pay.

      • jason1111 says:

        This was supposed to be a reply to another post above saying unions drive up labor prices and no one deserves $35 an hour.

  12. Jevia says:

    Survey in my email from my congressman (a republican) with my choices:

    1. keep payroll tax cut, no offset elsewhere;
    2. keep payroll tax cut, offset with other spending cut so as not to further increase the deficit;
    3. allow payroll tax cut to expire;
    4. unsure/other

    Surprisingly (or not), no choice of keep payroll tax cut, offset with tax hike on millionaires.

    • Matthew PK says:

      That’s because it’s a silly option. They aren’t going to offset it with a tax on millionaires. (Not that they should, the premise of “paying for a tax cut” doesn’t make any sense from the start)

  13. consumeristjohnny says:

    RIDICULOUS! When tax rates were at pre-Bush tax cut levels we had a balanced budget. Maybe you forget that. The money is going to pay for stupid shit the right wing douches want. Things like fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The deficit of 1 trillion dollars for the 2009 fiscal year was passed PRIOR to Obama taking office.
    The idiots on the right do not care about the debt, they care about putting more money in the hands of the wealthy. Name the last time a right winger submitted a balanced budget. It has not happened in my life time.

    • Actionable Mango says:

      It’s not a left/right presidential administration issue. Every presidential administration left with more national debt than he started with. Bush was colossally bad by adding more debt than ALL administrations before him COMBINED. But Obama is on track to do the same–add more debt than all administrations before him combined, including Bush!

      The only president to have a balanced budget in my lifetime is Clinton, but that was in large part due to cost cutting from the Republican’s contract with America and increased revenue from the Internet economy, which turned out to be a bubble.

      My point is D’s and R’s are both hugely guilty, and it’s as much about Congress as a presidential administration. Don’t forget, the president can suggest a budget, but Congress makes the budget. To lay blame on ANY one party’s presidents is ridiculous.

      • TheSpatulaOfLove says:

        Thank you for this – it was very well written. I wish more people in this country saw things for what they were rather than the D or R sides.

      • BobOki says:

        100% agree. People need to understand that R & D really are the same party in ever way save what they SAY, not what they do, as they do the exact same thing, but say.

        This country needs a slight overhaul of it’s electoral system (like doing away with electoral college) and the abolishment of parties. I don’t care what the original reasons were to allow parties to run, but all it has turned into is a way to keep others from running who are not affiliated. Almost like a mob run city.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Political parties emerged almost immediately after the U.S. was born. George Washington himself was quoted to have said that political parties were a bad idea.

          But it’s not like they were purposely created to serve some function, as your wording suggested. They were natural developments. Inevitably, people are going to disagree, and we have an innate desire to group together in commonality.

          • BobOki says:

            Of course you are correct, but I think there were other things at play during that time as well. The average income was super low, communications were hard and had to be delivered personally, choices were exceedingly limited. The way I see it, back then having a party allowed you to pool resources, allowed for you to get your name out to the masses where doing such solo would have been nearly impossible, and the group of like-minded people could pool their experience/brains/exp and pick the best candidate.

            All of the above are no longer nessesary. Any person can run and with the power of the internet they can spread their word with minimal cost. I know that television is another great medium for doing this, but it should no longer be counted IMO as the only people that do it do so for smear campaigns and judging by the costs assosiated I think they are “paying themselves” to get the work done. Think of it almost like fraud. Party wants to make a commerical, so they hire their parties video dept to make a video. Video dept charges their own party 50x national cost to make the video… your campaign dollars now able to be used for anything they want….. yeah but I digress. I really think there were reasons back then for them, now all they are is the same party that puts on a show when in public, posturing and puffing their chests at each other. Both parties take a “stance” of sorts on an issue which boils down to not taking a stance but saying they will do the oposite of the other party. When time comes to actually DO something, both parties do the same thing, which is whatever is more financially benificial to their party. The two party system stagnates debate, destroys open forum discussions, and as of late has become complete poison for the country. I want to see a presidential debate where they do more than answer our questions like “Well if the Republicans would not have…”. We didn’t ask what they did 12 years ago, we asked are you pulling troops out of Iraq. “The democrats failure to” We didn’t ask you what the democrats did two years ago, we asked what you are going to do about the economy.

            United we stand, Divided we fall…… how far we have come.

      • LanMan04 says:

        But Obama is on track to do the same–add more debt than all administrations before him combined, including Bush!
        —————
        Yes, Bush added hugely to the deficit while the economy was AWESOME, and Obama added to it hugely when the economy was (is) TERRIBLE.

        One of those makes sense. The other does not.

    • Bsamm09 says:

      The bush tax cuts cut the lower brackets the most. If they expire, the lowest bracket would pay 50% more in taxes.

  14. BK88 says:

    Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

  15. Debbie says:

    Those who say they want to pay more inn taxes are free to do so, but they won’t. What they really want is to tell others to pay more. There’s a line on every tax return to voluntarily give more.

  16. tooluser says:

    The Obama administration is not credible, so I have no need to read the article.

    • SexCpotatoes says:

      So what you’re saying is the Obama Administration is totally incredible?!? You must really be a big fan!

  17. Extended-Warranty says:

    This is all very easy to fix.

    - Put tax rates back to pre-Bush eras (maybe even add a new bracket for over $1 mil, 45%)
    - Get rid of capital gains tax, and make gains pure income

    Infinite monies. Problem economy?

    • voogru says:

      This is very easy to avoid.

      Move capital and operations overseas where the government doesn’t confiscate a majority of the fruits of your labor. (Note: When you add in most states sales taxes when you SPEND money, you’re pushing taxes above 50%)

    • Bsamm09 says:

      Capital taxed gains at ordinary income? So you are taxed at ordinary income when you are paid, then risk your money by investing in business just to have it taxed again at your marginal rate?

      Makes no sense.

      • jason1111 says:

        Only the gains are taxed. Not the principle.

        • Bsamm09 says:

          I know that. My wording was bad. I meant that taxes reduce your gains. If i invest $1000 and have a 10% return ($100) I pay tax (long term) of $15. My gain is now only 8.5%.

          If long-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income let’s say 25%, what is the reason to invest long term? None. The lower tax on long-term capital gains is to encourage long-term investment in companies.

          • jason1111 says:

            The profit is still incentive to invest. Netting $75 of every $100 earned on an investment is still better than $0.

    • Bsamm09 says:

      Also, the lowest tax bracket would have their taxes raised by 50% if you roll back the Bush Tax cuts.

  18. balthisar says:

    >>”Many of the wealthiest Americans have come forward and said they’d happily pay more taxes if it meant we had the right economic policies in this country,” said Deese.

    Well, I’m not among the wealthiest, but I can afford to pay more taxes, and might even be willing to do so. But, we aren’t anywhere close to having the right economic policies in this country, so keep your grubby hands off of my money.

    • zibby says:

      Exactly. The reason people are reluctant to pay more is that they feel it’ll go down the flush. That point of view is hardly unjustified.

  19. cashxx says:

    Stop bombing Iraq and Afghanistan and other places and using U.S. money to repair the foreign regions. Get out of those countries and use the money in the U.S. Detroit, Suburbs of Las Vegas, the Katrina stricken south are all shit holes for various reasons. Make Welfare based on Donations! Make all politician seats a term not a life time job like a senator. No more life time health care, only while they are in the politician seat for a term of 4 years or less! Stop sending money over seas, bring the factories back to the U.S. Make it a crime for people cheating and going around the law by using loop holes. Make an even tax rate for everyone so everyone is paying the same, not a republican but the 999 plain didn’t sound bad. Do away with the IRS then. Do away with the EPA, DEA and other wasteful agencies. Make drugs, moonshine, etc legal stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to stop it. Etc etc…..

    Easy fixes it just can’t be done when you have two parties (Democratic, Republican) and a bunch of people arguing like children over things. The system doesn’t work especially when you have a split system like we have today, senate is democrat and house is republican, nothing gets done!

  20. arcticJKL says:

    How is this related to consumers?

  21. geopapa says:

    Dimon, you are an insensitive, greedy piece of crap!

  22. ZombieEatsYou says:

    Nice to see Consumerist shilling the administration line. There is not a set amount of wealth in the world – merchantilism was discredited in 1776,

  23. zibby says:

    “Most fortunate.” That’s right folks, it’s all luck.

    And cripes, Consumerist, now that you’re a mouthpiece for the administration (I can’t imagine why else such a story that could only be at best indirectly related to any consumer affair would be here) just save us some time and reproduce these press releases verbatim.

  24. SamiJ says:

    We should tax the rich more. And raise capital gains tax. And reduce payroll taxes.

    “Research shows that a mere 1 percent of small business owners make more than $1 million per year. Only about 5.4 million of the nation‚Äôs 20 million small businesses pay any wages at all. The Republican claim about wealthy small business job creators, it turns out, is based on a convenient and overly broad definition of ‚Äúsmall‚Äù that includes partnerships and S-corporations, like hedge funds, accounting firms, law practices and other often big businesses.

    So when they claim to be protecting small business from high-end taxes, Republicans are really talking about protecting big companies whose owners fall into the one-half of 1 percent of taxpayers who are millionaires or better. A surtax would certainly not hurt them. “

    • Bsamm09 says:

      Partnerships and S-corps are mostly small businesses. If they pay no wages at all you need to eliminate S-corps since you are required to pat yourself a reasonable salary. This leaves you with sole proprietors and partnerships.

      The net income on these businesses flow through to your 1040 and are taxed your regular rates plus self employment tax. That is net income. Say it is your first year and you leave a lot of money in your business to expand. That money still flows through to your tax return and you pay regular income tax on it plus SE tax.

      You can have $1mil as your AGI and your actual take home could be well under that.

  25. charliesolo says:

    So, all the White House wants to do is lower taxes for 160 million families, to the tune of $1500 each.

    Fine. Let’s do the math: In order for 300,000 to pay to give 160 million families a $1500 tax cut, you have to tax EACH of them $8,000,000 IN ADDITION TO THE TAXES THEY ALREADY PAY.. Unfortunately, according to the article, the average income of the top 300,000 is $5.6 million.

    Just won’t work. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people‚Äôs money.”

  26. dush says:

    No, no, no. The Obama admin and the repubs for that matter need to give up on this idea of cutting the payroll tax in order to “help” the middle class. Why cut the funding for Social Security?? Why not just do a normal tax rate cut or tax credit? This is just stupid.

    And for Obama admin to say that cutting the payroll tax or extending unemployment benefits will help stimulate job growth is just idiotic.

  27. Me - now with more humidity says:

    BS. Money expands and contracts. It is not finite.

  28. soj4life says:

    How about we return the tax rate and dod budget back to what they were befoer dubya started to mess with them.

  29. Anonymously says:

    test