Open Left<\/font><\/strong>
by: Chris Bowers
Oct 07, 2009<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
- \n
- \nIncreasing taxes on the rich is pretty popular<\/a><\/strong>. In fact, it is one of the most popular things the federal government could do: <\/div>\n
- \n
- \nThe messaging has tons of populist potential, and would be easy to win. Sell it as "let’s take our stuff back," while pointing out that the top 1% of income earners took two-thirds of the benefit from the last economic expansion<\/a><\/strong>: <\/div>\n
![](\"http:\/\/www.openleft.com\/upload\/9-9-09poverty-f1.jpg\")
<\/a> <\/div>\nThey took our stuff from us, and we are taking it back. How can the top 1% argue that they are the only people who add wealth to America? This is the sort of fight that can help Democrats regain the populist mantle heading into 2010.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
People are worried about deficits, and this would be a lot more popular than cutting spending.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
It is a clear bright line, an undeniably must-pass piece of legislation, and guaranteed to have 100% Republican opposition. <\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
No question about Senate reconciliation for a budgetary measure like this. So, we wouldn’t have to deal with the 60-vote Senate.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nThis seems like a winnable campaign and could shift the balance of economic and political power in this country. After health care, I hope the Progressive Block pivots toward addressing income inequality through a big, progressive change in the tax code.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nI really was going to lay off the graphs, but then I read this by someone I respect a lot. He’s thinking about it politically – what can we<\/strong><\/em> succeed with next. And about how they<\/strong><\/em> took our stuff. The direction I was taking in my graphing frenzy was different, but ended up in the same place. The Tax Cuts – Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, even LBJ in 1964 – were political, not based on any kind of responsible accounting. And none of them actually got the job done. LBJ’s cuts made the most sense. We really were overtaxing the fabulously wealthy. But the cuts weren’t matched with any spending changes, so the net result was ineffective.<\/div>\n![](\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/incoming.gif\")
<\/div>\nGiven the circumstances, we need to look at the receipts side of the equation. We’ve been forced into a spending bind that isn’t likely to change for some time. And its obvious from the graph that the place where there’s wiggle room right now is INCOME TAX. So I’m out of retirement after a whole day of being graph-free<\/em>, with a graph and tables that relate to Chris’s point [the top 1% of our wealthiest]. Here are the tables of income levels and taxation results for reference [from The Tax Foundation<\/strong><\/a>]:<\/p>\n
\n
\n Dollar Cut-Off [Minimum AGI for tax return to fall into various percentiles]<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Year<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 0.1%<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 1%<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 2%<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 3%<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 4%<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 5%<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 10%<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 25%<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n Top 50% <\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2001<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n $1,324,487<\/sup><\/td>\n $292,913<\/sup><\/td>\n $199,620<\/sup><\/td>\n $161,491<\/sup><\/td>\n $140,721<\/sup><\/td>\n $127,904<\/sup><\/td>\n $92,754<\/sup><\/td>\n $56,085<\/sup><\/td>\n $28,528 <\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2002<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n $1,191,673<\/sup><\/td>\n $285,424<\/sup><\/td>\n $193,600<\/sup><\/td>\n $159,364<\/sup><\/td>\n $139,997<\/sup><\/td>\n $126,525<\/sup><\/td>\n $92,663<\/sup><\/td>\n $56,401<\/sup><\/td>\n $28,654 <\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2003<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n $1,262,760<\/sup><\/td>\n $295,495<\/sup><\/td>\n $198,413<\/sup><\/td>\n $162,893<\/sup><\/td>\n $142,928<\/sup><\/td>\n $130,080<\/sup><\/td>\n $94,891<\/sup><\/td>\n $57,343<\/sup><\/td>\n $29,019<\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2004<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n $1,548,941<\/sup><\/td>\n $328,049<\/sup><\/td>\n $216,491<\/sup><\/td>\n $175,495<\/sup><\/td>\n $152,344<\/sup><\/td>\n $137,056<\/sup><\/td>\n $99,112<\/sup><\/td>\n $60,041<\/sup><\/td>\n $30,122<\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2005<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n $1,848,791<\/sup><\/td>\n $364,657<\/sup><\/td>\n $236,741<\/sup><\/td>\n $188,534<\/sup><\/td>\n $162,297<\/sup><\/td>\n $145,283<\/sup><\/td>\n $103,912<\/sup><\/td>\n $62,068<\/sup><\/td>\n $30,881 <\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2006<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n $2,044,689<\/sup><\/td>\n $388,806<\/sup><\/td>\n $250,869<\/sup><\/td>\n $199,799<\/sup><\/td>\n $171,579<\/sup><\/td>\n $153,542<\/sup><\/td>\n $108,904<\/sup><\/td>\n $64,702<\/sup><\/td>\n $31,987 <\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2007<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n $2,155,365<\/sup><\/td>\n $410,096<\/sup><\/td>\n $261,166<\/sup><\/td>\n $207,560<\/sup><\/td>\n $178,965<\/sup><\/td>\n $160,041<\/sup><\/td>\n $113,018<\/sup><\/td>\n $66,532<\/sup><\/td>\n $32,879 <\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n This first table showed the bottom cut-off for the different percentile income levels. Just looking down the columns in the Bush years, it’s easy to see what every other graph shows. The wealth inequity is increasing at a very rapid rate. Besides putting us in a world of debt, the net result of the Reagan years and what has followed is that the rich are not just getting richer, they’re getting way<\/u> richer. That’s what Chris means by "getting our stuff back." What the rich would say is that they<\/u> are getting their <\/u>stuff back – the stuff that FDR and the Democrats have been taking away from them all these years. You decide who is right<\/em>… <\/p>\n
\n
\n - \n
CBS News\/New York Times Poll. April 1-5, 2009. N=998 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).<\/div>\n"Do you think the tax code should be changed so that middle and lower income people pay less in taxes than they do now and upper income people pay more in taxes than they do now, or don’t you think the tax code should be changed?"<\/p>\n
Should be changed: 65%
Should not be changed: 29%<\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n - \n