Comments on: The 1 percent vs. President Obama Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: deLafayette Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:33:38 +0000 {As a new television ad for the president argued this week, Obama’s plan is to “ask the wealthy to pay a little more so the middle class pays less, eliminate oil subsidies and tax breaks for companies that outsource.”}

Is that all. Just a little more?

Let’s consider how much the OnePercenters have been getting over the past two decades, whilst average household incomes have stagnated:

Year Top 1% income share
1990 12,98% (of Total Income)
1991 12,17
1992 13,48
1993 12,82
1994 12,85
1995 13,53
1996 14,11
1997 14,77
1998 15,29
1999 15,87
2000 16,49
2001 15,37
2002 14,99
2003 15,21
2004 16,34
2005 17,68
2006 18,06
2007 18,33
2008 17,89
2009 16,68
2010 17,42
(From Global Incomes Data Base, Paris School of Economics)

And they are afraid we might ask them for a “little more”? We should be asking for a helluva lot more.

We should take the Tax Code, dump it, rewrite it and place Marginal and Capital-Gains Taxation back up to where it was before Reckless Ronnie brought them tumbling down from levels above 70%.

Then, just maybe, they might begin then to pay a fair share of the tax burden.

By: JulsMan Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:44:59 +0000 @RealityHammer

Reagan grew the economy with massive amounts of government spending. Same formula you accuse Obama of using. Only Reagan didn’t have a EU meltdown dragging things back down. _Deficit_1971_to_2001.png

By: JulsMan Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:22:11 +0000 @RealityHammer

Actually Reagan got 8% growth with massive amounts of government spending. Of course you won’t believe me on that because Reagan is your demi-god. _Deficit_1971_to_2001.png

Wanna hear something else ironic, Obama-care was first proposed by the Heritage foundation and was Bob Doles plan on how to control health care costs with the individual mandate being being pumped as the ‘no free rides’ idea.  /20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-inven ted-the-individual-mandate/

By: Beobachter Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:58:38 +0000 @RealityHammer 30/7 1.38

Reagan was in a far better global position as anybody else since. In his (and Thatcher’s)days, during the end of his term in office the European east block turned just away from communism , China was still blocked from western influence, India was still a classic society. In short the BRIC did not exist.

This means that the West and Japan were the only mass producing modern economies in the world. So the supply side was still the west and Japan, with a fairly equal income level.

That has changed dramatically since the mid nineties (Internet and Laissez Faire supply side economics are to blame for that..

See today’s item about the new treaty with South Korea, that will not work, because American (as well as European) businessmen find it much more profitable to export work and import goods than to keep jobs and export goods.

The difference in cost level is too high, that’s why, That difference should be eliminated and the only way to do that is by means of (heavy..fully compensating..) import duties (Lost Jobs tax)

By: duh1977 Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:42:32 +0000 Back to the “married people who make $250k together are not necessarily in the 1%” comment.

Two people who each make $125k/year (“top 14%”) (think nerdy, hardworking engineers) by virtue of marriage get promoted to the “top 4%”. They are not in the top 1%, but Obama hates successful women and thinks that as a married “14%-er”, she and her husband should pay their “fair share.”

How dare two successful middle class people get married! That is something society should discourage. According to Obama, apparently women would be better off at home than working at productive jobs.

By: johncabell Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:58:27 +0000 @TheWiseOne This is what I don’t understand (partly mentioned by other commenters): As taxes are always a small fraction of additional income, why is it ever a good idea not to pursue additional income, the vast majority of which you’d keep?

Your subsequent reply — the additional costs and risks which come from any expansion — don’t apply to your initial point, which was that on a purely financial basis you wonder “how many other small businesses are doing the same math.”

The math is in your favor, unless you were going into a higher marginal rate (and even then it would still be in your favor to a somewhat lesser extent).

The best investment advice I ever got was, never make a decision based on the tax consequences. I wonder how many small business people are obsessing details which is at odds with their common business sense.

By: SayHey Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:53:45 +0000 @parachute – the 1% care about their money and their lives? – and that makes them different from everyone else because…??

By: duh1977 Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:21:37 +0000 Everyone keeps forgetting that married couples who make $250k are NOT in the 1%. These people are just hardworking, successful middle class folks. They aren’t sitting around living off dividends or other income from investments. Why does Obama hate successful women so much? These are the ones paying for childcare and for people to clean their houses because they don’t have time to do it all. They aren’t rich. They are just getting by, too. Oh, yeah… and employing other people to help them get things done. Hmm…

By: RealityHammer Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:42:54 +0000 The premise that the 1% is lined up against Obama is laughable. Just who do you think attends his $50K per plate fundraisers? Do you know who George Soros is? And those “companies that pay no taxes” would be GE, headed by Obama’s very own “Job Czar”, Jeffery Immelt.

Stop being such a lying hypocrite!

By: RealityHammer Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:38:42 +0000 I have to laugh at the ill-informed people who use the term “trickle down” to attack the most successful economic policies ever implemented in the United States. President Reagan inherited an economy in much the same shape as the one in 2008. Yet his polices produced an almost immediate improvement and by this stage in the recovery we had 8% growth (compared to a paltry 1.5% now!) along with lower inflation, lower unemployment, lower poverty, etc. The average income for all quintiles rose as did the net worth of all groups (as a whole). Anyone who claims it “didn’t work” or “only benefited the rich” is ignorant of history.