Kautzman's AP GO PO Blog

CE Week #7: ” Tax the rich: It’s the American way” Oct. 21st

Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

30 Comments Leave a comment.

1. on October 21, 2009 at 3:38 pm Alex Price Said:
   

   A) This article brings up some valid points. I understand and, to some extent, advocate raising taxes on the rich. In fact, I detest hearing about multimillion dollar CEOs who pay taxes similar in amount to us. However, if you have ever thought about it, there are about 340 million people in this country. 2% are what we would consider “rich”. If we had 6.8 million people paying the majority of the taxes for our country, eventually those few and privileged would lose the money they have. Where would we be then? I found the authors statistics about past income taxes very interesting. I am not the least bit surprised about the fluctuation between 63 and 92%. This seems to be a staple in the American economy, when things go bad TAXES!
   B) I liked his point of view. Normally, I dislike taxes, (who doesn’t?) But I did find his facts about the decrease in workers wages compared to the increase in CEOs wages enlightening. I think adding a small percentage to the taxes on the rich would drastically improve our economy and our deficit. In addition, I advocate reduced spending. When I lived in the south, there was a saying: “When you sees you’re in a hole, ya gotta stop diggin’”. Financially, we are in a massive hole. The idea of the rich pulling us out of the hole sounds good, but they will need a little help from the federal government, whom we all know is so good at using our money.
   C. I want to know a little more about our tax system in general. How was tax originally allocated after the founding of America? We all know what the American dream is, but it seems like nobody wants to contribute to it. That got me thinking, who came up with our present system?

   Link- http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html This is a link to my evidence for income distribution. I found this information very interesting.

2. on October 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm Nicole McMurray Said:
   

   In this article I learned a lot more about the economic crisis. I do not really know very much about it except that raising taxes is being thought about a lot and after reading this article I know even more about it. I learned that since 1970 the average CEO income has increased about 730 percent while the average worker income has decrease about 13 percent. I find this very interesting because if anyone needs money, it would be the average worker. I also learned that the highest tax bracket is 35 percent and the highest it has ever been was under Eisenhower with a 92 percent. I think that raising taxes on the rich could be a good idea because clearly they have more money than they need. However before I would go and tax all the “rich” people I would classify exactly who these rich are, because I really only think it would be fair to do it to the extremely wealthy. There are some families that may seem “rich” however what they make, compared to their expenses with their families may not allow them to enjoy all those rich luxuries. So there should definitely be research done to determine what rich people would be taxed and raise their taxes at least a reasonable amount so it is not too unfair. I would really like to know how people are classified into the brackets. How much do you need to make in order to be in the highest 35 percent bracket? Also how many taxes do the people at the lowest end of the bracket pay… no taxes?

   NO CREDIT: Label Parts & No Connection/Extension

3. on October 21, 2009 at 7:19 pm Jenna Alaskar Said:
   

   A. I Know: That we are in a recession. This term has been shoved down our throats through more and more aggressive means in recent years and I know my generation feels it. We feel bad for our parents because they have to deal with it in the present and our parents feel bad for us because we have no futures. Yes, I know all of this. I know how our government is constantly working to remedy the situation without much luck, and without much support. I know that in order to fix our economy and get over the worst financial downturn in decades we have to expand our options, in simpler terms we need money from somewhere. It makes sense to look for that money in the places where it is most abundant. I know that it makes sense to look to the wealthier levels of society to turn our economic downfall upside down.

   B. I Learned: The statistics that Jordan brings up were all new to me. The fact that “the average CEO income has increased a whopping 730 percent, while worker income has decreased 13 percent” shocked me. I understood that there were some immoral Richie Riches out there but not enough to produce numbers like that! I also learned that taxes were highest under Eisenhower and that they got up to 92%, and that under Clinton when CEO paychecks doubled taxes were less than 5% higher than they are now.

   C. I Want to Know: How the tax percentages are matched with incomes. I don’t get how when incomes doubled under Clinton the tax rate was 39.6% and now when they have gone up 7.5 times the tax rate is only 35%.

   Extension: I looked up the 2009 tax bracket, curious to see how high your income has to be for you to be contributing at least 35% in income tax. The magic number for most household situations is $372,950. You must be making about $400,000 in order to give back about $140,000. I’m not sure what to make of this information because, frankly, I don’t know what is usual for that income bracket. Based on the information from the article, however, I do believe that the percentage should be higher. At least for now.

4. on October 22, 2009 at 4:11 pm laraestotts Said:
   

   A. I knew previously that Americans who are hard working and make more money are burdened with more taxes. I also knew that taxes have been at seemingly high rates for the wealthy in the past. However, I also know that wealthy or not wealthy is not the only issue when looking at taxes. Both of my parents are small-business owners and face quarterly Business and Operations taxes on top of their income taxes.

   B. I learned that, under Clinton’s administration, the taxes on the highest bracket were actually higher than they are now—by 4.6 percent! I also learned that income taxes were once up at 92 percent for some citizens, which is outrageous.

   C. I would like to know how much money is generally raised in tax money per year and a general break-down of how it is spent. Are there any programs or other expenses that aren’t completely necessary?

   Connection- My dad has been talking to me a lot about how he is in favor of a “consumer tax” rather than an income tax. Personally, I don’t completely agree. However, I do think that a lower income tax followed by a “consumer tax” might be something that is realistic. This way, people wouldn’t be taxed on the money they choose to save, but rather only the money that they choose to spend.

5. on October 22, 2009 at 5:22 pm Brooke Batterton Said:
   

   A. I know that we have been in a recession for some time and are still in one. And all of the stimulus plans seem to just be pushing us further and further away from a healthy recovery. As of right now our economic future is looking pretty dismal. It really scares me to see the deficit numbers in the billions and the projected deficit statistic when the recession is over at somewhere around 3 trillion. Yikes. I worry about whether or not students that come from average American households will be able to afford college education, myself included. I have also heard many stories about how rich execs have given themselves huge bonuses which is not helping the cause.
   B. I learned that even though worker productivity is steadily increasing middle-class wages haven’t received a boost. Also all of the percentages and statistics that he mentioned I hadn’t heard of prior to reading this article. It makes it a little bit more real to me when I see the concrete numbers. I was surprised to hear that “according to The Wall Street Journal, since 1970, the average CEO income has increased a whopping 730 percent, while worker income has decreased 13 percent.” That is an enormous margin. I learned that the free enterprise system that the United States utilizes benefits the rich percentile the most. I liked what Jordan said about the rich owing the most back to society, what better way for them to pay their massive debt than through taxes. I also learned that tax increases on the rich as well as cutting back unnecessary spending. My opinion is that those who have the most money should be taxed more heavily. It seems logical to me that that is a good part to a solution for the recession. However I think that it is going to take more than tax increases and expenditure cuts to get us back on track.
   C. What constitutes “rich” in society today; specifically, how much income do you have to make annually to be considered wealthy? Also what kinds of programs will be labeled as “unnecessary spending” and will therefore be cut?
   D. Connection: I was talking to someone recently who works in the construction business and has been on unemployment for the past almost 6 months. He is on a waiting list but is still like 420th on the list and is now traveling to other surrounding cities in the Pacific Northwest to try to get up higher on another list. This is the case for many such workers and it makes me wonder where the government is going wrong and why things are remaining like that. What needs to be done in order to promote stimulation of the economy and get the country back on track monetarily?

6. on October 22, 2009 at 6:01 pm Bree Ferris Said:
   

   A. Jordan advocates taxing the rich more in order to help out with the economic recession. He points out CEO’s pay checks have gone up more than seven hundred percent in the recent years while employees pay checks have decreased 13 percent. In other words: they can afford it. He also notes that under the Clinton administration the highest tax bracket was 39.5% and we are currently under this level meaning there isn’t any reason we can’t return back to this level.
   B. Sure taxing the rich seems like an easy solution- we have to get more money from somewhere, right? But we have to consider if it’s really fair and while I note that they can afford it, is it afterall fair? It’s easy to say tax the rich if you’re not in their shoes but what if you were, would you be as apt to say tax the rich? Of course not- no one likes taxes. Jordan says they don’t contribute as much as they take and it would be beneficial for them to contribute a fair amount and I agree they should contribute the same proportion of their money as everyone else but I don’t know for sure how much taxes the rich do pay. Obviously this differs from state to state. What if they already are paying the same proportion of their money as everyone else, is it then fair to say tax them more because they still have a lot of money after taxes? I’d have to say no. On the other hand if they aren’t paying a fair percentage- which I get the feeling they don’t- than yes we should tax them more to make it even.
   C. Somewhere along the line the people with more money are getting taxed less, or at least that’s what this article alluded too. I don’t understand how people with more money can end up paying less taxes than other people? Aren’t they subject to the same income taxes, sales taxes and all other taxes as everyone else?

   Extension:
   I was curious what the current statistics were for the distribution of wealth in America. According to the information I gathered the top 1% of America has 34.3% of the national wealth, the next 4% has about 24.6%, and the next 5% has about 12.3% of the national wealth. The other 90% of Americans have roughly 28.7% of the national wealth with the bottom 40% having only .2% of the national wealth in America.

7. on October 22, 2009 at 7:02 pm Sadie Peterson Said:
   

   A. I was not aware that we, as a country, were still trying to come up with new ideas to bring us out of recession. I thought the economy was gradually moving from recession to normality, but this author obviously believes otherwise.
   B. It seems to me that the idea to raise taxes for the rich has already been brought up, discussed, and shut down overall. I don’t see how the majority of wealthy Americans are ever going to be okay with paying higher taxes than their fellow Americans. They will always argue that they have more money because they have worked hard to get where they are and they don’t want to be “punished” for happening to accumulate more money than others. America is a selfish culture. In general, we have been brought up to believe that money is good, and the more money one has, the more powerful they become.
   C. I would like to know what qualifies someone as being “rich?” Is there a certain income that, when reached, gives a person the new title of “rich?” What if, through these raised taxes, a person falls from the “rich” into the “middle-class” category?
   Extension: I looked up if it is possible for a “rich” person to fall back into not being rich, and that would not be an issue because it is people who receive a certain income that pay the taxes, and it doesn’t matter what they end up with after the taxes are paid.

8. on October 22, 2009 at 7:07 pm Russ Zeeryp Said:
   

   Um…what I know, not a while lot in this one. In fact, I thought most of it was a load of crap. The only thing I found interesting was the fact that this man truly believes it’s ‘The rich-mans fault”. Tax the rich? NO! Why? Because it’s not their fault we’ve entered an economic problem. Would I was looking over what this name was saying I thought of two things: ‘Man, this guy sure can’t put a lot of emotion into his writings.’ The second, ‘wow, is he really saying America should make life harder for those who do their best to make it better?’
   Besides there are more far more not-so-rich people compared to rich people. So, here’s my thoughts on the subject, why doesn’t every American give the Government 500 dollars? With that our economic problems would be over. Maybe not forever, but wouldn’t it bring the life back to the U.S.?
   I know most Americans wouldn’t give 500 dollars, of their money, to the government. So that’s why this would never work, but all I’m saying is, ‘we’re all in this together, and the only way to get out is to work together,’ if we can do that we’ll be fine.
   Most of my understanding on this topic came from this website:
   http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/10/07/tax_the_rich_hows_that_working__97440.html

   
   NO CREDIT: Extension/Connection

9. on October 22, 2009 at 7:10 pm Sadie Peterson Said:
   

   In response to Jenna:
   I couldn’t find anything online on your question, but I think the reason the taxing rate went down when salaries increased is because 35 % of $200,000 is $70,000, while 35% of $800,000 is $280,000. I think that the government doesn’t need or want that much money, so that’s the reason. I hope that makes sense.

10. on October 22, 2009 at 9:21 pm Kyle Hicks Said:
    

    A. What did you learn about this topic?
    This is obviously a touchy subject. So much so that when I asked my dad about taxes he said, “Kyle, you know that talk about the birds and the bees I left your teachers to give you? Well, I’d rather give that talk than go into the bureaucratic (expletives deleted) that comes with taxes.” You’ve got to love family. (Too Funny! I am literally laughing out loud! Kautzman)

    Some of the statistics were news to me. The 730 percent increase in CEO income was a bit of a shock, especially when placed next to the 13 percent decrease in worker income. As my dad would so eloquently say: “Those devious b**tards!” (Hm…perhaps my dad should not be sitting behind me giving his running commentary whilst I’m doing homework. Alas, the damage has been done.)

    B. What is your opinion on this particular topic or issue?
    First, I’d like to say that I like how this guy writes. I especially liked, “Hence, I’ve come armed with statistics.” Who uses “hence”?

    I have to agree with Jordan’s position. In a time of peace or budget surplus, extra taxes on the wealthy would not be necessary, but when we are facing a thirteen trillion dollar deficit, multiple wars, and an economic recession, things need to change fast. Why not raise the taxes on the wealthy, at least temporarily? Clearly they can change as shown by the statistics listed.

    C. What more do you want to know about the topic?
    I have to mirror Alex Price’s question and ask for some more, general knowledge on how our tax system works.

    D. Extension:
    After my dad’s first outbreak over taxes, I thought it unwise to ask what tax bracket we fall under. However, I was still curious about how it is set up, so I found this: http://taxes.about.com/b/2008/10/21/2009-tax-brackets-announced.htm
    Linked is a chart released by the IRS that shows the different brackets.

11. on October 22, 2009 at 9:36 pm Sammi Pace Said:
    

    A. In this article, I learned that federal income tax rate on the highest bracket, today, is 35 percent. I learned that since 1970, the average CEO income has increased 730 percent while the average worker’s income has increased 13 percent. I learned that President Obama suggests returning to the Bill Clinton days and raising the income tax rate back up to 39.6 percent.

    B. I find it interesting that, while the wealthy of the country become increasingly more wealthy, the average Joe is barely profiting over the same period of time, yet that the wealthy don’t have to contribute back as much to the country. From the website http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/TaxRich.html, “We must reestablish upper-bracket federal income tax rates comparable to those imposed during the prosperous decades of the 1950s and 1960s. The current effective rate on the richest 1 percent, whose income is at least $900 billion per year, is about 25 percent. An effective tax rate of 50 percent on the very richest 1 percent of Americans would raise an extra $225 billion.” I’m not exactly sure what else we could do. Raising the taxes on the middle class of America isn’t going to much except put more places out of business and put more strain on working families.

    C. I would like to know what the most effective way of bailing America out of such a deep deficit could be.

    NO CREDIT: Extension/Connection Missing

12. on October 22, 2009 at 9:40 pm Nicole McMurray Said:
    

    This is my updated post with labels and an extension.

    A. In this article I learned a lot more about the economic crisis. I do not really know very much about it except that raising taxes is being thought about a lot and after reading this article I know even more about it. I learned that since 1970 the average CEO income has increased about 730 percent while the average worker income has decrease about 13 percent. I find this very interesting because if anyone needs money, it would be the average worker. I also learned that the highest tax bracket is 35 percent and the highest it has ever been was under Eisenhower with a 92 percent.
    B. I think that raising taxes on the rich could be a good idea because clearly they have more money than they need. However before I would go and tax all the “rich” people I would classify exactly who these rich are, because I really only think it would be fair to do it to the extremely wealthy. There are some families that may seem “rich” however what they make, compared to their expenses with their families may not allow them to enjoy all those rich luxuries. So there should definitely be research done to determine what rich people would be taxed and raise their taxes at least a reasonable amount so it is not too unfair.
    C. I would really like to know how people are classified into the brackets. How much do you need to make in order to be in the highest 35 percent bracket? Also how many taxes do the people at the lowest end of the bracket pay… no taxes?
    D. Extension- I am kind of answering part of my question but I wanted to know more about the tax brackets. I researched that a tax bracket is a range of incomes taxed at a specific rate. For example, the lowest tax bracket might be $0-$8,025; the second might be $8,026-$32,550; the third $32,551-$78,850. When your income moves above or below the range limits (from $8,025 to $8,026 for example), you switch to a different tax bracket.

13. on October 22, 2009 at 9:44 pm pkautzman Said:
    

    Posted by Kylie Tomkins

    A. I knew that our country was in debt, but I didn’t know that it’s in the trillions. The government is going to raise the taxes for the rich and try to cut back on spending.

    B. In the article, the author said how he thinks the rich should pay more because in recent history their income has still been strong, while most other Americans have had trouble with getting a good income. I don’t think that is right that the people with a lot of money still are able to keep a steady paycheck, while others are having trouble keeping jobs, paying bills on various things, and make sure their families are fed. Most Americans are hard-work and they are just trying to get by and pay the bills. The economy is getting worse. We, as young people, are going to have more trouble than our parents did keeping a steady job that can pay for everything.

    C. How did America get so far in debt? What is the percentage of Americans that live paycheck to paycheck? How long have we been in debt?

    D. I looked up to see how far in debt we are and it said we are around ten trillion trillion.

14. on October 22, 2009 at 10:19 pm Krystal Roach Said:
    

    A. What you learned?
    So obviously we are in a recession, he clearly states that at the beginning of the article, well if it’s so obvious why must we keep pointing it out? The statistics he presented were great and very supportive of his point. I didn’t know rich people used to get taxed so highly in the past and when you compare it to the few points Obama wants to set it at now it doesn’t seem like it would be such a big deal.

    B. What you think?
    I think raising taxes on those who have the money to help support the country would be a great plan. I’m not sure if it would completely help the country but I think at this point we should at least try it. Of course your going to get those who oppose the idea, you always will, but I think most people would support the idea to raise taxing on those with extra money be a couple of percent points.

    C. What you would like to know?
    I want to know if the amount of income of a person is considered in taxing and if it is how is the amount you pay affected by the amount of income? (How much you pay vs. how much you gain in income)

    D. Connection or Extension?
    I’m not sure if Obama will actually make the decision to higher the taxes for the rich because I’m sure many of those people supported him in his run for presidency. We just got done learning about how important money is in running for election and how if you want to get the money you have to keep the rich happy correct. Well if Obama wants support from the rich in the future his choice to raise their taxes may change in order to keep that support.

15. on October 22, 2009 at 10:56 pm Taylor Jordan Said:
    

    What I Learned:

    I know that we are in a recession and the only realistic way to get out is to approach the problem with multiple solutions. I was unaware that since 1970 CEO income has increased 730 percent, while worker income has decreased 13 percent.

    What I think:

    I agree with Mr. Jordan wholeheartedly. There are two common misconceptions about the wealthiest group of people in our society. On one side, we think they are all greedy CEO’s taking out absurd bonuses and on the other they are just your average Joe who “works hard for his money”. Neither stereotype is true for the entire group as a whole. The point is that it is our society that allows them to flourish financially and they should feel obligated to help keep that system alive. The assertions that Obama is a socialist are truly ridiculous and unfounded. I agree that the best way to tackle this financial crisis is to cut waste but as for additional support, increase taxes on those who can afford to pay back into the system that allows them to be so far toward the top.

    Question:

    What does the future hold for us? Will our reckless spending catch up with us? China basically owns us, but what will come from this?

    Connection/Extension:

    This got me thinking about the bailout and though I understand that the repercussions would have been far worse had we let various companies go under, does this mean that our country will rely on these organizations’ existence for a presumably limitless amount of time?

16. on October 22, 2009 at 11:35 pm Dillon Fischer Said:
    

    A. I know that we are in a recession, and that a plethora of different approaches and solutions have been proposed to pull us out of the hole that we seem to be quickly deepening. I also knew that there are different tax brackets for different levels of wealth. I have heard the idea of raising taxes on the rich tossed around fairly often, but I didn’t know that the tax rate on wealthy Americans has actually gone down. I generally agreed with the article and I think that raising the tax on the rich (especially the super-rich, like those CEOs who are cutting themselves bonuses) is a good idea but it won’t solve our economic problem.

    B. I learned quite a bit of information regarding taxation from this article. I was unaware that the average salary for a CEO has increased seven fold, or that the federal income tax rate on the highest bracket is 35%. I also did not know that the tax rate on the highest bracket has once been up to a ridiculous 92%.

    C. I was surprised to learn in Jenna’s extension that the highest tax bracket starts at around $400,000. Why don’t they make a higher tax bracket with a higher tax rate at somewhere around $5 million dollars? It seems to me like that would separate more hard working citizens from greedy CEOs.

    Extension/Connection:
    I looked up the tax rates and brackets for some other countries and found that in Ireland, an income of about $54,600 puts you in the higher tax bracket with a 41% rate. In New Zealand, it is 38% for over $70,000. They have much lower income rates for the higher tax rates, and it seems to work for them.

17. on October 22, 2009 at 11:51 pm Ype Kingma Said:
    

    A: I am glad that someone brought up this topic. I am not saying I agree with him, but I am glad the topic got brought up. I found the article interesting, it caught my attention, and I also found it somewhat infuriating. I was very surprised by the statistics he brought up, especially the one about a 92% income tax under a republican president.
    B: I would like to begin with a quote “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics” (Mark Twain) I disagree wholeheartedly with the authors’ opinion. I am far from being under the category that would be taxed, but I think that to tax someone who has worked hard for their money simply because they have their money is absolutely ludicrous. I used to be good friends with Rob Anthony, whose father is a well known Oncologist, I remember quite vividly one time when we were hanging out, Rob was angry because it was tax season and his dad was being made to pay a ridiculous amount of money, even though I know for a fact his father is a very hard working and respectable man who earned his money honestly. An increase in taxes on the rich for simply being rich will only push people from working hard to become rich.
    C: I am curious about the statistics the author used, I would like to know the circumstances behind the 92% tax.
    D: I looked up the income tax statistics and I found that according to Rush Limbaugh (I am not completely sure if I should trust him with anything) the top 50% of wage earners are already paying 96.03% of all federal income taxes. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html)

18. on October 23, 2009 at 12:34 am Kesslan Hall Said:
    

    In response to Kylie:
    According to CNN, people living paycheck to paycheck is a little under half of the working class.
    As for America’s debt, I can only find charts that go back to 1940 online; so since then the closest we have been was over 30% (http://911review.org/Media/National_Debt.html)

19. on October 24, 2009 at 2:28 pm Kristina Nielsen Said:
    

    In response to Alex Price:

    I don’t know if this will help explain how our tax system works.. but I thought it was really funny! Here’s the website I got it off of…

    http://boogerpick.com/2008/02/11/how-our-tax-system-works/

    “Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
    ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
    it would go something like this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

    So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar
    every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until
    one day, the owner threw them a curve. He said, “Since you are all such
    good customers, I’m going to reduce the cost of your
    daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.”

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes,
    so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for
    free. But what about the other six men — the paying customers?

    How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would
    get his “fair share”? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
    But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth
    man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his
    beer. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce

    each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded
    to work out the amounts each should pay!

    And so:

    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
    continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
    men began to compare their savings.

    “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He
    pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

    “Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar,
    too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

    “That’s true!!”shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10
    back when I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get
    anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the
    nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came
    time to pay the bill, they discovered something important They
    didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is
    how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes
    get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
    attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up
    any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the
    atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
    Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

    For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible”

20. on October 24, 2009 at 2:46 pm Haley Anderson Said:
    

    In response to Kylie:

    C. How did America get so far in debt?
    From all the government spending, the majority of our debt comes from national defense, with the war in Iraq. Like the One Percent Doctrine, we had to protect and defend ourselves, so going into war created so much of our debt. Also it comes from trying to fix the financial system, and the health care issues. For example, the $787 billion stimulus package passed by Congress, which gives some relief to unemployed and/or uninsured citizens.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-02-12-stimulus-package-effects_N.htm

21. on October 24, 2009 at 3:14 pm Kelli Davin Said:
    

    Brooke Batterton

    I do agree with you about increasing taxes on the rich, but I don’t think we should have an outrageous amount of their money for taxes. Most of them have to work hard for their money. Of course, some people are well off because of inheritance, but think if you were one of those hard workers that built everything from nothing? Would you want the government to take more money than everyone else just because you have worked harder and smarter all your life? Probably not. The wealthy shouldn’t have outrageous taxes because of America’s debt. Plus, since they have more money, they have money to pay off credit cards, unlike most people who max out their plastic and don’t have the real money in the first place, for which creates even more debt.

22. on October 24, 2009 at 6:09 pm Sarah Fullmer Said:
    

    To Dillon:

    I’d have to say I most definitely don’t think the rich, people who have worked harder for their money, should have to pay a greater percentage. The idea of everyone paying a set percent of their income is fair because then the government is asking the same of everyone, but its something everyone can do. Just because someone makes more money doesn’t mean we should take more away from them.

23. on October 25, 2009 at 9:37 am Jessica Levy Said:
    

    Commenting on Kylie Tompkins:
    In response to your question “what is the percentage of Americans live paycheck to paycheck?” About four of every 10 American workers live paycheck to paycheck. Women are also more likely to live paycheck to paycheck 47% compared to the 36%of men who live paycheck to paycheck.

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/12/many_us_workers_live_paycheck_to_paycheck_survey/

24. on October 25, 2009 at 9:43 am Jenna Alaskar Said:
    

    In Response to Bree Ferris:

    To answer your question about if people with more money are getting taxed less: In fact, they are already getting taxed much more than we are. At the moment if you make more than $372,950 then you are giving back 35% of it to the government but if you make up to $117,450 then you are only paying 28% income tax; it is all subject to how much you make per year. The article is suggesting that we raise that highest percentage point, or create a new bracket for say, people who make more than 5 million dollars a year with a (hypothetical) 50% return rate. Income tax is different for every household depending on how much you make and what tax bracket you fit into. Although we all pay the same sales tax, that money is pretty much used by the state; for example, Oregon doesn’t even have sales tax but they more than make up for it in income tax.

25. on October 25, 2009 at 12:53 pm TJ McGriff Said:
    

    In Response to Bree Ferris:
    Taxing the rich is not the only way to solve this problem. We could also not create a massive deficit that is caused by big government. The national government doesn’t need to be as big as it is and if you cut government size half the battle would be over. Then taxes wouldn’t be as high as what they want them to be. I don’t know about everyone but I don’t like taxes and don’t want to give too much of my hard earned money to the government. All of that money can go to other things and if you put people in a position that they can give to the poor more would give. A better solution in my opinion that would save the government money would be to cut big government.

26. on October 25, 2009 at 2:13 pm Dillon Fischer Said:
    

    In response to Ype Kingma:
    I looked up the circumstances of the 92% tax. It reached this peak under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945, who tried to raise it even higher to 100% on marginal tax rates of incomes over $25,000 ($312,500 in the dollar value of today) to help with the war effort. These tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964.

    While I agree that this is a ridiculously high tax for an income of under $400,000 in today’s currency, don’t you think that the super rich should give a little more back? I think the tax brackets should be divided further to separate these people from the multi-millionaire CEOs who use bailout money to give themselves bonuses and go on company-paid vacations.

27. on October 25, 2009 at 2:40 pm Taylor Jordan Said:
    

    In response to Sammi Pace:

    Sammi, I don’t think that there is one golden answer to your question. Unfortunately getting out of this monster deficit is going to require a lot of work on many different fronts. As this article suggests, by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% and cutting wasteful spending, we can make huge strides as a nation toward becoming more financially stable. However there are many other aspects that will take time to recover. For example, consumer confidence needs to be rejuvenated.

28. on October 25, 2009 at 11:30 pm Russ Zeeryp Said:
    

    Commenting on Kylie Tomkins
    Our Country has always been in dept, and not just money-wise. We’ve always helped our neighbors and in return they help us. Here’s the thing, we’re not in dept because we don’t have a lot of money in our Country, but rather because we haven’t been doing a lot of favors on a global level.
    If we were to tax only the rich we wouldn’t accomplish anything but slow the economic downfall and make the rich less rich. If you really want to save this country from it’s own selfishness you have to warn others that the best way to save us is to work hard and spend money. We need to compete for the market (make better stuff than the others), and stop looking for an easy way out. Saying, ‘Tax the rich’ and stuff like that is doing nothing more than playing the best game ever, The Blame-Game.
    My point, if Americans can’t compete in one market start in another. If Americans are losing jobs, work harder and except getting paid less. If you don’t like the idea of our businesses going out of business, do something rather than say, ‘if we get some FREE money from that guy we’d all be ok,’ because, truthful, I hate it when anyone does that.

29. on October 25, 2009 at 11:45 pm Russ Zeeryp Said:
    

    Commenting on Dillon Fischer
    Well I can see where you stand on this subject. But why? Why don’t you support that the rich had to start somewhere too? If you were “Rich” would you want to pay more for being smart with money. I mean, if you’re rich you might have done something right to get that way. You do something to make life easier somehow. Isn’t that conceited “Giving back to your Country”? So why give more when you’ve only help make life easier?
    I know some of the rich aren’t wealthy because they did something to make life easier, but where do we draw the line on taxing? Do we tax the rich based on what they did? Or how they got their money? Maybe we should tax the rich who are born with money, but not tax the rich who earn their money. But even with that, is that considered right? So I’m asking, if you could pick, how would you tax those with wealth?

30. on October 29, 2009 at 11:52 pm Daniel Lipuzhin Said:
    

    A. Learn
    CEO income has increased by 730 percent, while worker income has decreased by 13 percent. Income rates have been at 92 percent once. Now, that’s above my understanding. Taxing the rich just a little more than 35 percent could help us out of a tight financial situation. After all, they do owe the society their fortunes.

    B. Think
    I think that the richer you get, the more greedy you become. With wealth comes power, and power can make tax increases not happen. So, it might be hard to make a tax increase. Why has not anyone made a tax increase yet? Although I do think that the rich should contribute to this country more, financially. I agree with the author, Chris Jordan. If you are rich enough, you can afford the taxed put upon you by the government. The richer people are, the more taxes they can pay. And they should pay, since they’re living in this country. However, when someone cannot afford the tax, it’s a problem. I think that these problems should be fixed, and then tax-raising will go much smoother. By the way, it’s really interesting how much money the government spends on the IRS versus how much money it receives in taxes.

    C. Question
    Has a tax increase been formally proposed yet?

    D. Extension/Connection
    The top 400 richest Americans’ lowest net worth starts at a low of 950 million dollars. The biggest is 50,000 million dollars. Wow. If these people each gave at least 1% more of their income to the government, what would happen? Mountains of dollar bills would move. Bill Gates, the richest of them all, could do that alone, even.

    Source:
    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/54/rich-list-09_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html