What, me rich? Update: reply from WSJ reporter

yep

But...but...but...If they don't keep that extra $300 a year, then they won't create any new jobs! (Oh, wait a minute, they weren't creating any new jobs NOW, were they?)

Logic, reason, common sense. You know by now these things do not apply to Republicans.

Every day, I read the same distortions and outright lies coming from the R side. About how Obama is destroying the economy with this horrible tax increase. As usual, the mainstream media is not helping by explaining the facts. Instead they give lots of ink to people like Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times. Goldberg is a real One-Note-Johnny, carping incessantly on Obama's plans to actually spend money on useful things instead of just pouring money into Wall Street. And of course, the tax "increases" on everybody! I guess he figures if he says it often enough some people will be gullible enough to believe it.

Poor lady can't afford anything LARGER than 2500 sq Ft!! There are people who have worked all their lives (my daughter for one - 15yrs at the same employer) who cannot afford to keep their house. She had to sell or loose it after 7 years and YOU are crying because you can't afford a larger one! I suggest that to cure your blues you get out and volunteer at a homeless shelter or at a school that is designated for kids who don't have permanent addresses. All of a sudden your 2500 sq ft will become much larger!!!

Yes, my heart really goes out to those earning more than $250,000. The fact that they can't save as much is heartrending. Most of us are just trying to pay our bills and buy food, especially those who have lost their job, like my husband.

If people would go back and do some research, they would find that Obama is just raising taxes for the rich up to more the level that they were when Reagan and Clinton were in office. And none of them were suffering too much then.

Sort of pales, when one looks at the massive cuts these same people got under Bush. This isn't pay, it's payback. The system has been unfair, and it's adjusting just a minimum of that unfairness out. Cry me a river, idiots.

Great post and I couldn't agree with you more.

Wealthy people have a right to speak up about their perceived hardships due to government initiatives. Perhaps it should even be encouraged because there's something good about it: Talking about it publicly makes their wealth known and becomes a form of transparency that shows their skewed view of the real world instead of their wealth being hidden by our cultural secrecy about individual wealth.

Progressive income tax is the best tax ever invented. Without the flat tax, known as the alternative minimum tax, lodged like a cancer within it, it would be perfect.

There is a reason to protest taxes. All other taxes are regressive, and effect everyone.

Lumping the two together is the problem, from a debate point of view.

I agree with your post. If people paid taxes according to their assets, taxes would be less unfair though still unfair.

Verie, that was brilliant. People with money, even upper middle class, have no concept of poverty. Unfortunately, they also have no compassion for the poor and lower middle class. In order for us to understand their thinking, we need to hear this kind of complaining in their terms.

They must keep up with the Jones in order to maintain their particular life-style and they are devastated when they can't. We see more suicides and murder/suicides of entire families when things go wrong for them. It is such a pity that they think that way.

Thanks for your comments. Shortly after posting this article, my internet connection went dead & only just recovered a few minbutes ago.

Verie, you make such an excellent point. I hope that was the intent of the author of the WSJ article - though I doubt it. We've all heard conservatives make statements that translate to:
Well, I've been able to xxxx, so THEY can too. -or-
I've got mine, Jack, to hell with you.

Since you have such a firm grasp of basic economics (since you're apparently knowledgable enough to speak on other peoples' "lack of understanding), maybe you could tell me how expropriation -- from anyone; in the $250k + income group or any other -- is supposed to "help out in this effort at economic recovery"?

With your apparently superior grasp of economic principles, maybe you could tell me what you think is the cause of systematic boom-and-bust cycles? Do you think this recession is an example of the downward phase of a business cycle? What causes these imbalances in the economy? Is it some malevolent Invisible Hand, that causes clusters of entrepreneurial errors throughout the entire economy, and which can only be corrected by the superior, benevolent wisdom and insight of politicians and bureaucrats whilst confiscating and re-allocating other peoples' money?

"We've all heard conservatives make statements that translate to:
Well, I've been able to xxxx, so THEY can too. -or-
I've got mine, Jack, to hell with you."

Far be it from me to sympathize with those who call themselves "conservatives," but at least "I've got mine Jack, to hell with you" doesn't imply initiatory, arbitrary violence.

We also hear alot of so-called "progressives" and the people who've hijacked the term "liberals" (both terms compete for Misnomer of the Century Award; for these people are neither "progressive" nor "liberal") make statements that translate to: I am somehow qualified to arbitrarily determine who should have what, according to my own subjective whim and discretion, and I will use the coercive force of the state to expropriate and redistribute so that society may become something more convenient and-or aesthetically pleasing to myself.

I'd rather have to deal with the guy who says "Well I've been able to do xxxx, so can you" or even "I've got mine, to hell with you," than the guy who has a gun and a plan for what he wants to do with what I've produced and earned.

" a plan for what he wants to do with what I've produced and earned"

Here I thought you were a libertarian, and you are denigrating freedom of thought and speech. Okay, you probably were just venting while you explained your own position. The thing is, you did not produce and earn money. You produced whatever work product is in you to produce and earned trade value. The monetary system, the social system through which we exchange goods and services, can only exist if people have thought up and executed a plan for how that is to be.

Just to point out, something that gets lost in all this talk about tax cuts and increases, who will pay how much, etc. etc., is that nominal income tax rates in no way come close to telling the whole story, regarding the costs of government, who will bear the burden, and to what extent.

Look at it this way: government does not have its own resources. Every red cent that is spent by government, must first be expropriated from individuals; somewhere, some way, somehow. Not only does income taxation account for less than half of all government spending, but direct, overt taxation in general does not come close to covering all government spending. So there is a different, more covert, insidious (however more convenient to the ruling class) tax, that is inherently regressive in nature, and has a marked history of literally wiping out middle classes; and that is the inflation tax.
The inflation tax always falls hardest on those who can afford it least. Politicians love it, because it enables them to expand their own power and influence, but spares them having to overtly and directly impose the burden of the cost of it in such a way that would make it obvious from whence the weight that crushes the citizenry is centered.
Tax hikes have always been politically unpopular and inconvenient; so the ability to levy a sneaky, hidden tax is a prime asset for any aspiring tyrant. The fractional-reserve/central bank mechanism permits them to do just that. And there are also private beneficiaries from this engine of plunder; most of whom can be found on Wall St. or K St., but certainly others scattered all about the land.
Its just the nature of the thing, though, that those closest to the money-spigot benefit, and they do so at the inescapable expense of those who receive the newly-created "money" later (or not at all).
Wealth and capital can not be increased by printing green pieces of paper with neat little designs on them, or by entering digits in a ledger or a computer screen.

One thing you can rest assured; Barack Obama and his partners in organized crime (who call themselves by high-sounding titles like "Senator" and "Congressman") are proposing massive increases in plunder. And if you really think that the entirety of the burden of these increases will be borne by the upper 5% of income-earners in this country, then I got some really choice shares of stock I'd like to sell you ...

<<< a plan for what he wants to do with what I've produced and earned >>>

"Here I thought you were a libertarian, and you are denigrating freedom of thought and speech."

Try as I might, I can't seem to make sense of this. Am I to infer that you regard my pointing out that others would like to coercively pound society into something closer to their hearts desire by government force, as "denigrating freedom of thought and speech"?

I have no problem with others thinking of and speaking about how they would like to see wealth distributed throughout society.
My only problem is with the use of violence to compel others to submit to such subjective, arbitrary whims.

"The thing is, you did not produce and earn money."

I never said I did. I just said "what I've produced and earned"; I didn't say anything about money.
However, the exchange value of what I produce and earn is represented by money; money serves as the medium by which value is stored and traded; and the government has in effect a decree which stipulates that only the worthless green pieces of paper issued by the Fed can be accepted and traded as money; so therefore, the value I produce and earn is effectively confiscated and redistributed, through the confiscation and redistribution of the so-called "money" which is the storehouse and medium-of-exchange of that value.

Any more semantical nitpickings you'd like to have me address?

"The monetary system, the social system through which we exchange goods and services, can only exist if people have thought up and executed a plan for how that is to be. "

Ahhh. So then, some group of pelople then must necessarily devise some centrally-planned "system," and then impose it on the rest of society by force; or else we cannot have social order?

Give me a break. Governments did not invent production and exchange, division of labor, and social cooperation. In fact, division of labor, specialization and interpersonal exchange had to emerge first, or else there never could have been any such thing as "society," let alone government.
It is true, that individual rights must be secured and upheld in order that there be a functioning social order. But there is no reason to therefore conclude that one group of people must be entrusted with a coercive monopoly on law and justice, in order that law and justice be established; let alone that a group of people be entrusted to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions upon everyone else, and plan out the economic and monetary affairs of society from the political center.
Governments did not invent division of labor, and governments did not invent money. All that is required to explain the emergence of a common, generally-accepted medium of exchange, is sheer human self-interest; individual people acting in their own best interests, increasing their own wealth and potential, by integrating themselves into as wide a market as possible for trading their own product, and exchanging for that of others.

"if people have thought up and executed a plan for how that is to be. "

Ahhh. So then, some group of pelople then must necessarily devise some centrally-planned "system," and then impose it on the rest of society by force; or else we cannot have social order?

Give me a break. Governments did not invent production and exchange, division of labor, and social cooperation. In fact, division of labor, specialization and interpersonal exchange had to emerge first, or else there never could have been any such thing as "society," let alone government."

Uh, you are the one ranting on about "Government" (some demi-God you oppose, I suppose?) I said "people." Nor did I mention coercion of any kind.

""Here I thought you were a libertarian, and you are denigrating freedom of thought and speech."

Try as I might, I can't seem to make sense of this. Am I to infer that you regard my pointing out that others would like to coercively pound society into something closer to their hearts desire by government force, as "denigrating freedom of thought and speech"?

I have no problem with others thinking of and speaking about how they would like to see wealth distributed throughout society.
My only problem is with the use of violence to compel others to submit to such subjective, arbitrary whims."

You do obviously have a problem with people voicing opinions not up to your sense of reasoning. Otherwise, you would clearly state your positions without the need to express irascible outrage.

Well more of the so called middle class now cannot even afford dentistry or healthcare or meat or a car that actually has any value.

Oh my heart so goes out to those folks who make more than 250K.

Steve wrote: "Since you have such a firm grasp of basic economics (since you're apparently knowledgable enough to speak on other peoples' "lack of understanding"

The point was not about economics, it is about people's lack of understanding of marginal tax rates. That is more like misunderstanding basic math, not economics. So keep your sarcasm.
And this post was not intended to be a justification of government, which you seem to abhor. We have a government. We do not have anarchy. Hopefully we will never have anarchy, despite your endless pedantic promotion of it.

nominal income tax rates in no way come close to telling the whole story, regarding the costs of government, who will bear the burden, and to what extent

Of course not. That's far beyond the scope of this post.

"Verie, that was brilliant. People with money, even upper middle class, have no concept of poverty. Unfortunately, they also have no compassion for the poor and lower middle class."

As someone you're discussing with that comment, I must correct it.......in my case anyway....I do remember what it was like to be both poor and lower middle class. I was a good life, but like most people we had goals and wanted better for our children and so we worked our rumps off to climb the rungs on the ladder. No one "gave" us anything. We've worked our arses off to get everything we have., and I'd probably be much further ahead and have amassed much more in the field of financial merrits, were I not always handing out to those less fortunate than me....not because anyone makes me, but because it's who I am. I figure I've been blessed and so it's my duty to turn around and help those in more need than I, until they can begin receiving blessings of my own.

Despite being one of those who earn over $250k a year, and will be assessed according to the new taxation, I have no complaints about it. I never count my chickens before they hatch. Our taxes are deducted from our pay before we ever see them,, and you usually don't miss what you never saw coming in anyway. If it stimulates and helps to make us stronger as a country, I'm all for that, and don't even blink at "taking one for the team".

My bias and resentment rolls in though, in that the big federal government is trying to award stimulus/bailout money to states, complete with strings and rules attached. That is my gripe. I don't believe big government has a place in small government or that the federal government should have the right to dictate on a state government level. That is my only complaint.I know many others who feel exactly as I do, but our voices and opinions never seem to be heard. It seems that if it differs from what the masses are pushing than we must be radical Republican Obama haters, and that simply isn't the case. I truly believe that if people would just begin to listen to what some of us are saying, the situation could be revolved much easier. We don't have a problem being taxed at a higher rate to help out our great nation.....we just don't want big government running our lives in our little towns. We want our own state level government deciding what's best for us as individuals, regardless of which party our governors belong to.

Does that make any sense? (I may not have explain myself very well, and if not I'll come back tomorrow and try again from scratch, with a rested brain! Goodnight and many blessings to you all)

Krissy, you explained wonderfully. Yes, people generally want to do our part. We don't want to be steamrolled. We want the federal government to take care of the overseas and general domestic policies. We want our local governments to take care of the local needs. We want our own consciences and ideals to dictate our own actions in our private lives. Makes sense.

As I wanted to explain earlier, but got sidetracked by emotional concerns,

As you point out, the tax money is not what you are expecting to take home, and therefore not what you've "earned." It is an expense of doing business. For those directly involved in selling their goods and services on the market, it is part of their expenses. It is true that then their prices will have to include those expenses plus if they are to make a profit. This is true of any of the expenses of getting the product produced and to market. According to capitalist theory, they who do best at this deserve to win the greatest profits. If capitalists are the realists they claim to be, they understand this aspect of reality.

On the underlying complaint that their/our/your/my money is being stolen:

There are those who claim that property is theft. The bounty of the Earth, the natural resources we all use, belong to all of us and none of us. It is there. We can use it. However, we do not own it. If we take these resources for ourselves, we are stealing them. If we make something from those resources (or from materials made from them, and so forth), we righteously own that value created from our labor, but the world still owns its resources put into that product.

In our modern USA we have a system of trading through the intermediary medium of money. This money is problematically created by a nongovernmental agency and sold at a profit, thus being based not on anything solid, just debt. However, the value of the money is set according to agreed upon rules and backed by [what is that wording? Something like] the full faith and credit of the United States. Thus, the money is not ours. Not only is it a fictional representation, I mean fictional representations such as intellectual property can be ours, but it is a collective fictional resource backed by governmental authority. This is not to say we ought to be taxed indiscriminately. There are checks and balances both in terms of economics and politics.

Well said, libramoon. I would add that any efficient system of commerce requires a monetary system - barter simply does not work on a large national scale. And that monetary system requires trust to work.

Krissy:
I am sure you worked hard for what you have, as did I. However, I would like to point out that you took advantage of an educational system (somewhere - do I detect British syntax?), a system of regulated commerce that allowed people and firms to do business either with you or your firm; a police force to protect you and your customers and suppliers from bandits; a military to protect you from foreign invasion; an infrastructure, such as roads, to assist commerce. The list goes on and on. You sound like a reasonable person who can understand and appreciate that all these "provisions" require a working, workable society with reasonable regulations which allow commerce to function without relying upon universal altruism. The analogy between commercial society and a football game holds to a point: both need rules and referees to enforce them.

When forced, Steve Bachman will quietly admit that government has a police and military responsibility without admitting that many other government funtions (such as tax collection) flow from those protection responsibilities.

"Krissy:
I am sure you worked hard for what you have, as did I. However, I would like to point out that you took advantage of an educational system (somewhere - do I detect British syntax?), a system of regulated commerce that allowed people and firms to do business either with you or your firm; a police force to protect you and your customers and suppliers from bandits; a military to protect you from foreign invasion; an infrastructure, such as roads, to assist commerce. The list goes on and on. You sound like a reasonable person who can understand and appreciate that all these "provisions" require a working, workable society with reasonable regulations which allow commerce to function without relying upon universal altruism. The analogy between commercial society and a football game holds to a point: both need rules and referees to enforce them. "

Gary, neither I nor my husband, have anything other than a public high school education. I started out working as a secretary, moved up to office manager and eventually became an insurance agent. I never owned my own agency and have always worked for someone else. After graduation my husband did two years in the Air Force and then afterwards went to work at the bottom of the ladder on a drilling rig working what is called "worm corner", meaning all the grunt work, like slinging a sledge hammer! lol He worked his way up, and is now a directional driller. He still does manual labor, although they pay him well for his mind and muscles these days. We've never owned our own company, and have made our living making others wealthy.

I believe and agree that all those systems should be in place. I can't argue that at all. My disagreement, though, is in who should be policing them. I believe that our state government should work WITH our federal government for the betterment of our nation. I believe the state government should police those systems within each state and that it is our jobs as citizens to police both of those governments. I believe everything is about the checks and balances and that too many queen bees, without enough worker bees is always going to cause the colonies to collapse.

Krissy:
Thanks for your comments. I certainly do not mean to diminish your and your husband's hard work. My argument is with those who insist that they had absolutely no help in gaining whatever they have. You said you went to a public high school. Taxes (including federal) paid for that school. As long as you acknowledge that, then we are on the same page.

Just as people may not do things on their own property that adversely affects their neighbors, states may not do things that adversely affect their neighboring states or the nation as a whole. For the most part state governments do work with the feds, as you said they should, "for the betterment of our nation".
Who DO you think "should be policing" the systems? Federal taxes go toward many of those systems - which means Arizona citizens are helping out Texas citizens on some systems, vice versa on others.

"When forced, Steve Bachman will quietly admit that government has a police and military responsibility without admitting that many other government funtions (such as tax collection) flow from those protection responsibilities."

You speak just as authoritately about me as you speak about economics -- and from just as much of a position of ignorance, as well.

I concede nothing to statism. Nothing. Coercive monopoly is never necessary, never ideal. Never. There are no goods or services that should be provided at the barrel of a gun. None.
Initiatory aggression is always unjust. Always.

If the scope and purpose of the coercive force of the law is not expressly and explicitly to protect and uphold the equal, intrinsic rights of every individual, then it is no more than a tool of tyranny, usurpation, oppression and plunder.
And there is no rational justification for subjecting law, justice, and police protection to a compulsory monopoly; let alone education and infrastructure.
These things can and should be provided the same way as anything and everything else is best provided; by voluntary mutual terms of agreement.

Whatever.

Yeah, of course; "whatever."

Somebody mentions that the law should establish and maintain equal justice amongst all individuals, instead of facilitating the easy and convenient subjugation and plunder of society at the behest of interested groups -- and your response is "whatever."

That attitude is indicative of why things have gotten as bad as they have, with the U.S. devolving into all-out National Socialism, people being plundered into poverty and not even knowing which way is up.
Its bad enough being made a serf. I don't think I could stand being a dupe as well.

I have stayed out of this up to now because Steve and I have been around and around on these issues until neither of us has anything further to say to each other.
BUT...
In Gary's defense, Steve, you have said in our discussions that the only legitimate government function was the protection of private property. That is how I remember it, anyway. Please correct me if I am wrong. So Gary's comment that you took issue with merely stated that, as I read it. Police and the armed forces protect individuals and their property from attacks by...criminals (police) and foreign governments (military). I think that is all he was saying.

That's pretty much the way I remember it, too, Bert. I could go back through volumes of his comments and find it, but I've already wasted too much time with with Steve's opaque logic.

The only legitimate function of *law* is the protection of persons and property.
In that assocations of people calling themselves "government" purport to be arbiters of the law, then the only legitimate function of such an association is the defense and preservation of equal rights -- i.e., defense of persons and property from initiatory aggression.
However, if such an association did focus it's purpose and scope to what is it's only legitimate function -- the law; i.e. defense of equal rights -- this implies, ipso facto, that it would not (could not) apply coercive force to maintaining it's own monopoly in its field of services. Thus, the one element that distinguishes what we know of as "government" from all other associations within society (the presume authority to exercise a supposedly legitimate monopoly on coercion) would be absent, and the association of law and justice would just be market entities, operating the same way as any other association or institution within society operates -- by voluntary, mutual agreement and contract.

For the umpteen hundredth time: I am not opposed to law, to police protection, or militia. I am opposed to unjust, coercive monopolization; of these or any goods or services.

However Gary -- or Bert, for that matter -- can demonstrate to me why this is "opaque logic," I would love to find out.

Please do, Gary. Illustrate for me why my logic is unsound. If you can't (of which I'm already certain), then perhaps you should take your petty, vapid insults, and save them for somebody who might actually mistake them for proof of a valid argument.

Syeve: Did you just invite me to butt out of my own comment thread?

Very good article, Gary. The distortions I hear everyday astound me. And it is usually the poorest and least fortunate among us who are the most vocal when propagandized. Amazingly ironic.

You have brought out one of the most important points - progressive taxation. And the fact that this so-called tax increase on the rich is simply a 3% increase, putting us back where we were pre-Bush. Now we also need to reform what types of income are taxed - such as the income that hedge fund managers receive that is only taxed at 15%.

The richest people in this country are far removed from the majority's reality. We see it in the investment business. They own multiple homes, yachts, private jets, go on elaborate vacations, spend money like water. They have no concept of what it is like to be an average American. And the richer they get, the greedier they get, not wanting to give back to society.

It is very, very sad. And even sadder to see these poor schmucks out there with their tea bags and posters 'fighting' their cause for them.

Thanks, Sheryl. I just returned from a visit to relatives in the South - almost all of very modest means, yet vehemently conservative Republican, anti-government.

Absolutely right about the hedge fund mgrs. And one of the most disppointing things about their treatment is that Dem Senator Schumer is leading the fight against reforming that enormous tax loophole.

You know, Gary, I have very little faith in our elected reps doing anything that goes against a big-money campaign financial supporter. The oil states' reps are screaming against carbon emission caps, the corn state reps are screaming against health initiatives that would cut subsidies to high fructose corn syrup, the northeast reps are screaming against insurance and financial industry reforms.

They don't really care about what is good for their constituents, the nation or the world's future. They only care about filling their campaign coffers for the next election and retaining their seats. What we need more than anything else is CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. Not only would it stop the buying of votes, it would free up large amounts of time where our reps could actually DO what we send them to DC to do - what is best for the citizens, not what is best for big corporations, many of whom are working against our health and welfare.

Sure does, Sparky. All spending contributes to GDP, even government spending. (It goes for road construction, soldiers' pay, police, firemen & teachers' pay.
Would you believe that the Arizona State Treasurer has said in an interview that taxes collected disappear from the economy? Stupid bozo plans to run for governor before long, & just might be elected.

"Syeve: Did you just invite me to butt out of my own comment thread?"

No, I did not. But I do find it interesting, that you construe my pointing out that your blithely tossing around insults doesn't fool me into thinking that you have any sort of valid argument, as a suggestion to butt out of the conversation altogether. Sort of telling, really.

I reiterate my point, though (the one I was actually making): If you can illustrate for me in what way I am a victim of "opaque logic," then perhaps I could look at your insults as anything more than a naked compensation for the fact that you can't actually rebut or refute anything I've said here.

"All spending contributes to GDP, even government spending."

Sure it does, Gary. And I guess when you take a dollar out of your front pocket, and put it in your back pocket, you consider yourself a dollar richer?

I guess when you're content with understanding only that which hits you immediately in the eye, then its easy to go around spouting half-truths and fallacies as if they were scientific fact.
As the great Bastiat wrote; if you're going to speak of government spending as if it were a quenching rain falling on parched tracts of land, then perhaps you should ask yourself whether the land gains as much by the rain as it loses by the evaporation which draws it into the air.

The only chance at an actual scientifically viable argument you might have, is if you argue that our money is more value productive when it allocated according to the whim and discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, than it is when it is allocated according to the needs and demands of the people who actually work and produce in order to earn it.
But then you'd be falling into the whole argument about whole the political class is a species somehow inherently wiser or more benevolent than us mere homo sapiens, and such a premise can hardly be considered scientifically sound.
But then, that premise is the whole basis behind statism. I should hope that someone might one day find it worthwhile to prove such a hypothesis, so that the whole issue of having the whole of society be coercively made to submit the arbitrary restrictions and compulsions imposed by the political class might be made more palatable to folks like myself, who tend to favor quaint, qixotic old ideas like individual liberty and equal justice.

I won't hold my breath, though.