Larger text
Smaller text
Why not tax the rich?
About The Tribune-Review
Daily Photo Galleries
By Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, December 9, 2012, 8:54 p.m.
Updated: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Tax the rich
The Republicans want the deficit reduced by taking away benefits from the disabled, widows, senior citizens and the working poor. Why do they stand tall and say not one penny from the rich?
The rich should not be exempt from helping to reduce the deficit. A lot of them helped cause the recession with their bank and stock manipulations. They closed factories here and threwing people out of work, then moved the jobs and their ill-gotten money overseas.
In terms of percentage, the rich pay less income taxes than middle-class workers. When you take into account income taxes, the Social Security tax of 6.2 percent and Medicare tax of 1.75 percent, middle-class workers are paying upward of 20 percent. If you are retired and have a pension, you pay 25 percent on your Social Security income.
We should not let the rich sneak out of paying their fair share.
John Kubla
Lower Burrell
Submitted by:
Anthony
on Monday, December 10, 2012
John, your assessment of the situation is distorted by liberal rhetoric. You’ve chosen to believe the lies that the wealthy pay no taxes. And you further demonize them for closing factories and moving their operations to foreign countries. Do your research and you will find that the wealthy pay plenty of taxes (in dollars) and inject more into the economy because of their investments in their businesses. Speaking in percentages masks the amounts of money that are input to the economy by the rich. If you investigate the workings of the economy, you will find that much of the exportation of jobs is a result of the obscene U.S. tax rates which are among the highest in the world. If the government stops robbing them, perhaps they’ll stay. You are also misinformed as to who to blame for the drain on your income due to Social Security and Medicare. These institutions were sourced entirely in Democratic administrations. Take a look at history. SS was introduced by FDR (ultra-liberal), but it was voluntary at the time. Then it was made mandatory by Truman (another Democrat). But despite its “pyramid scheme” design, it was oddly enough solvent until LBJ (another ultra-liberal) raided the fund to bankroll his “War on Poverty” and his “Great Society”. You may have noticed that we still have poverty decades after his administration and many will agree that our current society is not as great as it was prior to LBJ’s misguided programs. And you may be interested to learn that LBJ instituted Medicare. I know. I was there when his administration began taking it from my pitifully small salary in 1966. So drop the drama. Republicans are not trying to reduce the deficit by taking benefits away from the disabled, widows, senior citizens and the working poor. No one now receiving SS will have their payments reduced. The Republican proposals are to restructure these institutions for future generations so that they will still exist when current young wage earners reach old age. Otherwise, the plans will be bankrupt and no one will receive anything from them in the decades to come. And by the way, the impending reductions in Medicare reimbursements are the result of the current regime’s theft of $716 billion of Medicare funds to bankroll Obamacare, which if you’ve been paying attention, is NOT for seniors.
Submitted by: John on Monday, December 10, 2012
So true, I have changed my mind about the rich, they are nothing but greedy pigs
Submitted by: William on Monday, December 10, 2012
You do realize that the income tax is a progressive tax? This means that you pay a higher rate as your income increases. The top bracket pays 35% (bigger than 20%). By the way, if the rich aren't paying their "fair share" (whatever that means), how much should they pay?
Submitted by: Walter on Monday, December 10, 2012
Thank you John for your very uninformed letter. You are a classic example of why Obama is still our so called president. You have absolutely no idea of what you are saying. Report after report has informed people of just how much the wealthy pay in taxes in comparison to other people. As to the 25% rate for retired people, I am retired and receive Social Security and investment income, and I can assure you I pay no where near that amount. Maybe try less than half that. As for the Trib, why would you print such a ridiculous letter?
John, your assessment of the situation is distorted by liberal rhetoric. You’ve chosen to believe the lies that the wealthy pay no taxes. And you further demonize them for closing factories and moving their operations to foreign countries. Do your research and you will find that the wealthy pay plenty of taxes (in dollars) and inject more into the economy because of their investments in their businesses. Speaking in percentages masks the amounts of money that are input to the economy by the rich. If you investigate the workings of the economy, you will find that much of the exportation of jobs is a result of the obscene U.S. tax rates which are among the highest in the world. If the government stops robbing them, perhaps they’ll stay. You are also misinformed as to who to blame for the drain on your income due to Social Security and Medicare. These institutions were sourced entirely in Democratic administrations. Take a look at history. SS was introduced by FDR (ultra-liberal), but it was voluntary at the time. Then it was made mandatory by Truman (another Democrat). But despite its “pyramid scheme” design, it was oddly enough solvent until LBJ (another ultra-liberal) raided the fund to bankroll his “War on Poverty” and his “Great Society”. You may have noticed that we still have poverty decades after his administration and many will agree that our current society is not as great as it was prior to LBJ’s misguided programs. And you may be interested to learn that LBJ instituted Medicare. I know. I was there when his administration began taking it from my pitifully small salary in 1966. So drop the drama. Republicans are not trying to reduce the deficit by taking benefits away from the disabled, widows, senior citizens and the working poor. No one now receiving SS will have their payments reduced. The Republican proposals are to restructure these institutions for future generations so that they will still exist when current young wage earners reach old age. Otherwise, the plans will be bankrupt and no one will receive anything from them in the decades to come. And by the way, the impending reductions in Medicare reimbursements are the result of the current regime’s theft of $716 billion of Medicare funds to bankroll Obamacare, which if you’ve been paying attention, is NOT for seniors.
Submitted by: John on Monday, December 10, 2012
So true, I have changed my mind about the rich, they are nothing but greedy pigs
Submitted by: William on Monday, December 10, 2012
You do realize that the income tax is a progressive tax? This means that you pay a higher rate as your income increases. The top bracket pays 35% (bigger than 20%). By the way, if the rich aren't paying their "fair share" (whatever that means), how much should they pay?
Submitted by: Walter on Monday, December 10, 2012
Thank you John for your very uninformed letter. You are a classic example of why Obama is still our so called president. You have absolutely no idea of what you are saying. Report after report has informed people of just how much the wealthy pay in taxes in comparison to other people. As to the 25% rate for retired people, I am retired and receive Social Security and investment income, and I can assure you I pay no where near that amount. Maybe try less than half that. As for the Trib, why would you print such a ridiculous letter?
Most-Read Letters
- The field already is level
- Support the quitters
- Bigger Navy worth cost
- Murphy mislabeled
- Screaming for ice cream
- Another form of tyranny
- Already influenced
- HEALTHY support
- Heresy II
- Goodwill mission to Moore
- Wrong on boxing
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
