Halcyon Days

In Greek mythology, the Halcyon Days were the seven days in winter when storms never occur.  

The push for higher tax rates for the wealthiest class is driven home by the core logic that all we need to do is go back to the nirvana Clinton year tax rates.   Forgetting for a moment that much of Clinton's robust revenue came from the revenue produced by an economic bubble on technology, the logic is further flawed. 

George W. Bush produced a tax cut for ... everyone.  He didn't cut the taxes of just the top 2%.  He lowered the tax rates for ALL including taking a large number of Americans out of the tax paying pool.   It increased revenue AND increased the percentage that the top income earners pay of the total.

Therefore, if we want to go back to the great Clinton tax plan - EVERYONE pays more.   Everyone loves a good tax rise until their own taxes rise.  Even "altruistic" Warren Buffett supports a tax plan that actually would have minimal impact on his own personal tax situation.   The only reason people like taxing the wealthy, is it means taxing someone other than them.   By definition, increasing taxes on the top 2% means that we are not increasing taxes on 98%.  

This is not some sort of punishment game.  The top 2% have no liability they owe the world for past deeds. There is no basis for claims that say a "fair share" isn't paid.   People want more revenue, but they don't want to pay for it themselves.  Tax the other guy.

Additionally, every person who quotes the great Clinton tax rates for economic success, fails to note that maybe we should go back the the Clinton SPENDING levels.  Gov't spending in 1997 was a fraction of what it is today.   Hell, Gov't spending in 2004 was a fraction of what it is today.

The Wall Street Journal today lays out the Democrat's "ask" for revenue increases to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.   What's on the table, the chart reads.  $1.6 trillion revenue increases through a combination of factors.  Actual tax rate increases on "upper-income" households would yield $442 billion.  But additionally, those same earners would be burdened with limits on standard tax breaks ($584 billion), increase rates on dividends and capital gains for ONLY upper income households ($242 billion), place limits on tax breaks for upper income earners ($165 billion), and raise taxes on estates and gifts ($143 billion).   Reminder, when we say "upper-income", these aren't billionaires or million dollar-a-year salaries, theses are couples making $250,000.

But wait, there's more.   "Other potential sources" are capping total deductions at $25,000 for upper-income only.   That's a cap on previous deductions of state & local taxes, property taxes, charitable contributions, mortgage payments, etc.  That raised an additional $800 billion. 

By now, you must see the recurring theme in "upper-income" only.   The argument by Democrats is, "how can the Republicans hold up negotiations for solving the fiscal cliff to save 'a few millionaires.'"  It's only 2% of the population!

In this country, we promote success.  We don't punish it.  In this country, we don't abuse the minority because the majority has the voting power.    Hell, let's only tax Agnostics & Atheists.  They only represent 2% of the population, who would possibly stand-up to the rest of the country to support such a small voting block.   

So, it's more than just raising the marginal tax rate by a "couple percentage points."  At the end of that process, it's raising the marginal tax bill on individuals and small business - those with success, those that create jobs, those that spend and invest in the U.S. economic system - by a lot.   It's more than just protecting a small population of Americans - but even if it WERE, targeting a small group to carry the country's burden while it continues to spend and spend and spend with no end it sight, is WRONG in its own right.   Shared sacrifice means just that - shared.   The tax system is already enormously progressive.  Raise taxes, and the rich WILL pay substantially all of the bill.