We don't need tax increases as much as we need wage increases...

[kentuck]

We hear the over-weight Governor of New Jersey rant about the American people becoming an "entitlement" society. If that is true, then we must ask why and who is responsible?

When work no longer becomes viable as a means to make a living, people tend to look elsewhere. They look for "entitlements", which usually will pay about the same as a low-paying job without the expenses. Yes, there are people that make more money off entitlements than off work. Why is that?

For several decades, wages have failed to keep up with the cost of living. Work has become a useless and futile effort for many Americans. The business community and the wealthy need to look in the mirror. As they made record profits and accumulated more and more wealth, many workers kept sliding deeper and deeper into quicksand.

Rather than worry about whether their taxes are too high, perhaps they should worry about whether their wages are too low? It is my opinion that the economy and the working people of this country would be better off if lower wages were to double from their present rates, rather than taxes. Work should be worth more than entitlements. In many circumstances, it is not.

[rfranklin]

1. The quickest way to increase tax revenue would be to boost minimum wage...

but we all know that the ultimate objective is to restore slavery to its original glory and profitability.

[liberalmike27]

20. I totally agree

You hear them whining about how the poor don't pay taxes. Pay us more!! Then we'll pay taxes.

It's absurd that we base fairness on how much of the one, federal income tax we pay. When we look at the overall tax burden of the poorest, you're talking somewhere between 20 and 30 percent. The SS/FICA alone with the employer compensation, which is part of income, is 15 percent on everything you make. This year of course Obama has given us a small decrease. Add on top of that, whatever your local sales tax is since you're going to spend that on everything you earn, or gas taxes, which are about the same as sales' taxes here. Add a bunch of other small taxes, plus whatever small portion one pays on federal income taxes, and the poor end up having quite the tax burden.

And if you're judging fairness, should we not look at how much is left over after paying ALL of your taxes, not at how much of ONE tax you pay? The reason you pay a lot in taxes is you're rich!! That is basically based on unfairness, and you paying more, well that's just a little way we compensate for the fantastic amount of income you extract from the rest of us.

[Dachor]

21. agreed

[Initech]

22. They'd love to overturn that pesky 13th amendment if they could.

But I guarantee we'll see an economic revolt in my lifetime before that happens. This why we cannot allow the teabaggers to gain control of the White House - it will be disastrous!!!

[mmonk]

2. We need both. The 1% has done well but contributed little.

[kentuck]

8. True.

We need both.

However, I do believe that higher wages would help more than higher taxes, overall.

[tk2kewl]

19. I do not think you can get higher wages without higer taxes on transnational corps and the 1%

those taxes that we have not been collecting for > 30+ years are monies that we the people would be spending on infrastructure, education, technology, research, etc. The absence of those tax dollars has been an integral part of depressing wages, empowering the wealthy to take more and more from themselves.

Ending the money and power grab and collecting taxes and invesing that public money back into the economy will go a long way to help increase wages.

[josephslaton]

3. 2 things

First, dividends and capital gains taxes need to go waaaaaaaay up.
This would be MUCH more effective than the buffett rule and a helluva lot easier to sell to the voters

Second, this isn't by accident. This all started under Reagan when wages flattened out you were supposed to refinance the house and get credit cards to make up for the widening gap.

Scumbags all

[HughBeaumont]

4. I'm wondering when a two-earner household is officially not going to be enough to survive.

Un/under-employed people cannot buy shit.

If no one has disposable income because their wage sucks, they can't buy shit.

If customers aren't walking through the door, there is no business.

This isn't "Economics 101", it's "Remedial Common Sense".

You know, unless there's some magical way that allows a business to create additional business without giving the worker or the customer any gain.

[LiberalLoner]

7. There was a time when many generations and many families lived together to try to survive

I am seeing that happen again. Six working people buying a townhome and making the space work for them. Having 2 or 3 old cars between them all. Just trying to survive. That is becoming the norm.

Unless we can fight back successfully it will end up with most all of us homeless, trying to survive with rags wrapped around us and working only to starve more slowly than we would otherwise. That's it. That's the future unless we win.

[CrispyQ]

11. Well that was a downer.

Sadly, I agree.

However, I hold hope that this will make us re-connect with our local communities in a way that we've lost touch with. I'd like to see America stop glorifying the rugged individualist mentality & behavior. It has it's place, but it's out of balance in this country.

[CottonBear]

5. "Work should be worth more than entitlements. In many circumstances, it is not."

I can testify to this fact from my ongoing personal experience.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Shhhhh...that will just make them work harder to cut entitlements.

Keeping wages down is their #1 anti-inflation program.

[Uben]

9. If wages were doubled in the U.S. ...

....then that would only serve to make American products more expensive and less competitive in the world market. As good as it sounds, it would not work. To stay competitive and put more money in the pockets of the middle class, we have to tax those with the most wealth more and the ones with less wealth less. Reducing the tax burden on the middle class gives them more to spend, which in turn stimulates the economy and increases jobs. If you double the wages, but retain the same tax rates, you have accomplished nothing. As long as the uber-wealthy are allowed to pay a lower tax rate, they will continue to build their wealth.

So, you say, if the wealthy had to pay higher wages, they would have less money. Not so. They would simply charge more for their goods and services, making their product less desirable on the world market and thereby reduce the number of jobs available to the middle class. The rich got rich by lobbying congress to lower their taxes. Look at the history of taxation in the U.S. The whole story is there. Look at when the U.S. was doing the best, and then look at the tax rates for that period. The tell me your idea would work.

[kentuck]

10. You would be correct if ...

...you were to do away with the law of supply and demand. A producer cannot raise prices on a whim if he has a competitor.

We can reduce taxes on everyone if we want to reduce the size of government and do away with many programs that help people. That is what the right has been arguing for decades...

[NNN0LHI]

16. Well, let me ask you something then

How do we keep up with our cost of living with stagnated wages?

Let me give you an example. The property taxes on our home have quadrupled since 1989. Went from $1200 a year to $4800 a year. During this same period my income has went down.

How do you square "receiving less pay is better", with that happening?

What kind of job do you have where that type of increase in cost of living doesn't effect you?

Don

[jeff47]

18. Because Germany is failing, right?

Germany has high wages. German products sell quite nicely on the world market.

Additionally, the US itself is quite an enormous market. Higher wages would lead to more domestic sales.

[Ikonoklast]

24. I noticed you did not mention the corporate profit margins.

Wages are too high, but profit margins...?

[bigtree]

12. well, we could increase the minimum wage

. . . outside of that, achieving a shift in the tax burden -- essentially a tax cut for the middle-class and the working poor) is really the only effective way the government has to put more money in the hands of average income Americans. There really isn't a way, outside an adjustment in the minimum wage, that the government has any control over what private employers pay. Increasing the minimum wage in the increments which would only be politically available in a perfect storm of a House takeover and an increase in the Senate Democratic membership would still leave average income Americans at a disadvantage over the wealthy one percent. If nothing is done to make that 1% pay more taxes, the burden on the majority of taxpayers will remain.

[kentuck]

13. No doubt, the 1% should pay more in taxes...

Instead of a tax increase, Congress could incentivize it, so that employers could get a tax break by giving employees a wage increase instead of getting taxed at a higher rate? Our goal should be to pay one wage-earner enough of a wage so that mothers could return to the home, if they so chose? Of course, employers would not like either option and would fight it all the way. None of it is going to be possible without a more enlightened Congress.

[Prophet 451]

14. Been saying this for years

Wages in both our nations are far too low. The right are complaining here that it's possible to get more in social benefits than it is by working. Obviously, they're claiming that means social benefits are too high but when it really means (if it's true which it usually isn't) is that wages are far too low.

[TahitiNut]

15. Exactly! The impoverishment of the Working Class went postal ca. 1980

We desperately need a renewed FLSA and economic policies that penalize corporations that compensate labor for less than 30% of the value of that labor. We're a now Plantation Economy ... thanks to Banana Republicans. The Reich Wing has obsessively pursued policies and legislation that has disenfranchised labor, importing non-voting, non-citizen workers and ramping up a prison system that spews out "ex-felons" without the right to vote. On top of this, labor's right to organize has been widely curtailed to the point it's not even close to subtle with the draconian abolition of collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin and other GOPher holes.

The GOPhers then distract and obfuscate, attempting to point the finger at 'government' (of the People, by the People, and for the People?) as the villain for taking too much in taxes. Fucking nonsense. Absolutely EVERY change n tax policy has benefitted those whose incomes are attributable to either (1) the labors of OTHERS, not themselves or (2) the death of ANOTHER, with no labor equity whatsoever. "Work"??? That's for the 'little people.' The wet dream of the Reich Wing is slave labor ... which is why they adore China and other autocratic regimes.

The NBA 'millionaires' went on strike against the billionaire 'owners' largely to gain a 53% share of the net income attributable to their 'labors.' It shows how insane we are ... where the average employee at an S&P500 company gets less than 30% of the net income due to their labors ... and that's TOTAL compensation, including health care and pensions and ALL benefits. It's fucking INSANE.

[progressoid]

17. Every time I see one of these graphics, it seems to alway show a shift at the same date.

[Sirveri]

23. The best way to increase wages is to increase taxes on the 'owners'.

We either forcibly redistribute the cash, or they are penalized for hoarding the wealth such that they relinquish it in the form of greater compensation.

This also holds prices steady since there is less incentive to maximize profit margins.