President Obama’s American Jobs Act seems to contain one component which has riled Republicans in Congress and that’s increasing taxes on families that make $250,000 or more per year. They have commonly referred to this component as “class warfare,” to which I have to chuckle. As it states at FactCheck.org, approximately 1 in 50 families bring home at least a quarter million per year, so that constitutes just 2% of the population. With the jobs bill, Obama would be raising taxes on the top 2%, while 98% of the population wouldn’t see their taxes increased.
I’ve heard many members of the GOP state that the top 2% are the job creators and it would harm the economy if we were to raise their taxes. With the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy in tact, the unemployment rate is around 9.0% currently. When Bill Clinton took office in 1992, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. Clinton increased taxes to 39.6% and left office with unemployment being around 4.2%, the lowest since 1969. Under Clinton, 22.7 million jobs were created. Under Bush, 1.1 million jobs were created. Looking at history, it doesn’t appear as if raising taxes on the wealthy will have as dire of consequences as Republicans tend to claim.
Let’s also not forget about the Bush tax cuts’ impact on the deficit. With FactCheck.org again being the source, as of this year, the tax cuts have accounted for 17.7% of the deficit and if they are prolonged into 2019, the tax cuts will be responsible for 55.6% of the deficit. I find it quite humorous that the majority of Republicans in Congress constantly harp on the notion that Democrats are careless with their spending, yet believe careless spending is acceptable with regard to providing tax cuts on the wealthiest in the country.
Finally, why must the GOP stand up for the top 2% and state that an increase in taxes for those making over a quarter of a million dollars every year is class warfare, when the lower and even middle class have become poorer over the past several years and the rich have only increased their wealth? Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez stated that 67% of income increases from 2002 to 2007 in this country went to the top 1%. The richest 1% in this country account for 24% of the country’s total income. We haven’t witnessed that high of a number since 1928, which just preceded the Great Depression. On the other side of the equation, the bottom 40% account for less than 1% of this nation's income. Also, the Census Bureau showed that poverty is at its highest point since 1965 for working-age people between the ages of 18 and 65 years old. Poverty increased from 13.2% to 14.3 %, with 6.3% living in deep poverty (those whom earn less than half the poverty threshold of $30,174 for a family of four), the highest level since 1975, when the Census Bureau first started tracking it. Lastly, the ratio of the average executive's income to the average worker's income was at approximately 30 : 1 back in 1950. Since 2000? That number has increased to between 300 and 500 to one.
Looking at all of these numbers (and others), I suppose the GOP is right. There has been a class warfare transpiring - not at the expense of the top 2%, but at the expense of the other 98%.
I’ve heard many members of the GOP state that the top 2% are the job creators and it would harm the economy if we were to raise their taxes. With the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy in tact, the unemployment rate is around 9.0% currently. When Bill Clinton took office in 1992, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. Clinton increased taxes to 39.6% and left office with unemployment being around 4.2%, the lowest since 1969. Under Clinton, 22.7 million jobs were created. Under Bush, 1.1 million jobs were created. Looking at history, it doesn’t appear as if raising taxes on the wealthy will have as dire of consequences as Republicans tend to claim.
Let’s also not forget about the Bush tax cuts’ impact on the deficit. With FactCheck.org again being the source, as of this year, the tax cuts have accounted for 17.7% of the deficit and if they are prolonged into 2019, the tax cuts will be responsible for 55.6% of the deficit. I find it quite humorous that the majority of Republicans in Congress constantly harp on the notion that Democrats are careless with their spending, yet believe careless spending is acceptable with regard to providing tax cuts on the wealthiest in the country.
Finally, why must the GOP stand up for the top 2% and state that an increase in taxes for those making over a quarter of a million dollars every year is class warfare, when the lower and even middle class have become poorer over the past several years and the rich have only increased their wealth? Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez stated that 67% of income increases from 2002 to 2007 in this country went to the top 1%. The richest 1% in this country account for 24% of the country’s total income. We haven’t witnessed that high of a number since 1928, which just preceded the Great Depression. On the other side of the equation, the bottom 40% account for less than 1% of this nation's income. Also, the Census Bureau showed that poverty is at its highest point since 1965 for working-age people between the ages of 18 and 65 years old. Poverty increased from 13.2% to 14.3 %, with 6.3% living in deep poverty (those whom earn less than half the poverty threshold of $30,174 for a family of four), the highest level since 1975, when the Census Bureau first started tracking it. Lastly, the ratio of the average executive's income to the average worker's income was at approximately 30 : 1 back in 1950. Since 2000? That number has increased to between 300 and 500 to one.
Looking at all of these numbers (and others), I suppose the GOP is right. There has been a class warfare transpiring - not at the expense of the top 2%, but at the expense of the other 98%.
Comments
Post a Comment