ADDED: Lots of comments on this post, mostly from people who don't get Meade's sense of humor. What Obama said was:
“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”
Posts
482 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 482 Newer› Newest»He knows it. The guy is dishonest to the core.
Your claim that 50% pay no income tax is demonstrably and laughably false. Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash. So if YOU are not being dishonest, then you're not very smart.
"Is there ANYONE on this planet who truly believes that Barack Obama would agree to immediately cutting $1 trillion from this year's spending in exchange for raising $100 billion in taxes over the next ten years??"
Of course not. Obama is as Keynesian. His ideal situation would be to increase spending by a trillion this year. He's enough of a political realist to know this is a non-starter so he's willing to make a deal to cut in the future in order to save as much a he can of the current economic situation. He thinks cuts will drag the economy down and kill his chances for reelection. The Republicans think that creative destruction is a good thing and the first thing they want to creatively destroy is Obama. If the economy shits the bed on his watch it means they'll be the ones to preside over the recovery and get credit for it. This isn't evil because they believe the economy is going to shit the bed sooner or late with all the debt problems. They just think sooner is the way to go.
wow, major hats off to the son,
"John Althouse Cohen said..."
he is of course right. This post must be an embarrassment to Ann.
Pity, more like, Jay the Dyslexic klansman. Ah pity you, and pity the TP foos, like that bag of untalented carney shit, Rush Limbozo.
Now we return you to yr Carney-nomics 101 lesson, grrrl with Doc Pastaman. Next up, the LAFFFER!
this is too focking eazy
Your claim that 50% pay no income tax is demonstrably and laughably false.
The poster was referring to federal income taxes.
Anyone that works pays income tax,
Except for the 44+ million filers who had no federal income tax liability in 2009.
You are a beclowner of the first order.
Cripes, Coolidge, not Hoover, sorry. That was insane.
Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan.
"Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash."
OK, people, help me here. What's his point?
Hoover was an idiot.
Calypso Facto, I agree. But this discussion came up because it was suggested that the Republicans' supposed stance (virtually never raise taxes) was called absurd; and this can't be called an absurd position by anyone, regardless of their politics, if we're already north of the Laffer curve maximum. In fact, it's the only logical position you can hold.
The Democrats have managed to transform from tax-and-spend liberals into spend-and-tax liberals. First spend the country into oblivion, then leave it for the Republicans to try and raise enough revenue to cover their tab.
J said:
"Pity, more like, Jay the Dyslexic klansman."
Hey!
I thought I was the dyslexic Klansman.
How come Jay now is? What am I, chopped liver?
My feelings are hurt.
John Henry
Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash.
It's been a while, but I seem to remember being able to put EXEMPT on my W-4. I'm pretty sure I was working at the time.
Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash.
Generally, when people say "income tax" they mean the personal income tax, not the FICA payroll tax. Hasn't this point been made here ad nauseam?
Anyone that works pays income tax
Huh?
There's got to be some twisted, dishonest spin I'm not getting. He isn't this dumb.
Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash.
Yet another Internet classic revealing your stupidity.
Remember when you claimed the teachers were paying for their won retirement?
That was a good one too...
Joe Schmoe-
Thanks for the context of the statement. Seems like I might have to go watch that particular blogging heads.
My ancien Acadian relatives are from both sides of the Saint John so it's in reference to Madawaska-in it's historical sense.
this is too focking eazy
Well yeah.
You've demonstrated incoherence and ignorance is 50 words or less!
Sant croix said:
"Hoover was an idiot"
He may not have been a good president, he was hardly an idiot.
Highly successful international mining engineer, probably saved 20mm Europeans from starvation before and after WWI. Successful Sec Commerce.
He is also a helluva good writer. Read his memoirs (available for download at the Hoover library), his book on fishing, his textbook on mining and some of his other stuff. I have.
Hardly an idiot.
John Henry
@garage -- I thought the low rates and deductions that reduced or eliminated income tax on the less wealthy was a feature. Why don't you celebrate it?
garage: "Anyone that works pays income tax..."
And anyone who makes a small enough income gets a refund larger than what they paid in. So no, in the end they don't pay income tax.
Now, I will grant that they do end up paying tax indirectly; every time you bump up corporate rates, the local donut shop has to raise the price of a dozen glazed to cover the increased cost, and those working poor end up paying more for their donuts, so that some bureaucrat in the Department of Health and Human Services can get a 4% COLA to raise his annual pay to $105,637.
Way to stick up for the workin' man, garage.
Canuck
Ugh-we could also discuss the Fed doing negative interest rates....
But when my friend brought it up a couple of days ago-I thought he was joking.
Ugh.
(I bookend that idea with the dreaded double -ugh.)
Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash.
Don't fall for that ol' gag. Garage is just playing you with the semantics game: virtually everyone who works does in fact pay income tax, collected and forwarded by their employer on a quarterly basis. It's just that 47% get it all back as a refund.
Interest free borrowing from the poor: yet another service of your benevolent federal government!
I'm for low taxes but I hate this talking point about half paying no federal income tax. So what? The idea that making the poor pay more tax would suddenly wake them up to the evils of taxation doesn't take into account that once awoken they might actually vote. To soak the rich.
So maybe I am from Madawaska essentially but not really.
That should drive John Althouse Cohen nuts.
Of course, garage is almost correct. "Virtually" anyone who works faces a positive marginal tax rate. Workers who receive payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit face a 21 percent income-tax rate by virtue of the fact that this is the rate at which their payments are reduced for every dollar of income they receive above about $16,500.
That's one of the most amazing features of a system that's full of means-tested benefits: sometimes the people receiving those benefits face the highest implicit marginal income-tax rates.
"Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash."
And for that matter, how does working for cash absolve you from your tax liability?
Jeepers. What a lot of comments. Ann, presumably this was a trap for unwary commenters? If so, you caught your own son!
pm317, what do you suppose the negation of "would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance", that is, "would almost never raise taxes" is?
Is the negation of this "would almost always raise taxes?"
Or are you saying that it's "would raise taxes, but more often than 'almost never'?" Because that doesn't even come close to making sense. Recall that Obama said the Republican position violated common sense. That's not a difference of degree, but one of kind.
Obama muddled his own statement, by reflexively adding that "virtually" in there, and he set himself up for this sort of mockery. He'll put these "virtually" and "essentially" sort of lawyerly qualifiers into his speech out of force of habit, and it usually allows him to wiggle out of any definite statements. But here he tripped over it.
Anyone that works pays income tax,
Except for the 44+ million filers who had no federal income tax liability in 2009.
Exactly. It's called a tax "credit" garage, like the "earned income tax credit". It means you can actually make a PROFIT on your income taxes if your salary is low enough/you have enough deductables (mostly equals: kids). And not a tiny one either, you can make several grand on your taxes.
"Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash."
Huh? Just not true.
garage mahal said...
Your claim that 50% pay no income tax is demonstrably and laughably false. Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash. So if YOU are not being dishonest, then you're not very smart.
Oh, I get it, it was a trick response.
Yes, most everyone who works on the books has income taxes deducted, which can be twisted to claim that, see, they actually do pay taxes, you lying Rethuglicans.
In actual fact, when they file their tax returns, not only do nearly 50% get all the income taxes back, but a sizable percent of those get the fully refundable earned income tax credit in addition to the refund of 100% of their income tax deductions, reducing the actual income taxes they pay to a decidely negative income tax. (As a relevant aside, the IRS estimates that tens of billions of dollars is paid out each year in fraudulent earned income tax credits.)
As a CPA who actually understands taxes, now that I understand your faux-argument, I can unequivocably call you a disingenuous liar.
Busted.
I assumed Meade and Ann were being deliberately ironic.
I listened to the recent BH with Jonah Goldberg and Bob Wright, but I think Jonah's criticism rings hollow. Obama is notorious for publicly staking out a level to which he would be willing to compromise. Consequently, he is a horrible negotiator. It's part of the reason the House got all they did in the recent budget deal. Sadly, what's good for the R's can also be exploited by foreign leaders.
The Republican field wisely passed on stating an acceptable ratio of tax increases to spending cuts, since that would surely be used as a starting point in future negotiations. Revealing an "acceptable" end point to a negotiation before those negotiations have begun is rather the opposite of "common sense."
It's a bit like publicly stating that you never press charges.
Saint Croix said...
"Hoover was an idiot."
No, Hoover is evidence (as if we needed more) that smart people can fail miserably.
"Yes, most everyone who works on the books has income taxes deducted, which can be twisted to claim that, see, they actually do pay taxes, you lying Rethuglicans."
I suspect that's his point. And it's whats been pissing me off about him, lately. He doesn't debate in good faith.
I love that name "earned income tax credit".
It's not earned, and it was never income. It's just redistribution, from my pocket to J's.
You're welcome, J.
Now you'll have to excuse me, I have to get back to work, to make some more money for J to spend on WoW gold, anal lube, and roach clips.
"Jeepers. What a lot of comments. Ann, presumably this was a trap for unwary commenters? If so, you caught your own son!"
Yeah, but Prof. Althouse usually doesn't straight up troll and I'm not sure I get the context other than how typical it is in politics these days to have your words misconstrued.
And for that matter, how does working for cash absolve you from your tax liability?
It doesn't. Garage apparently supports strippers, waitresses and pirates not doing their legal civic duty and filing the proper paperwork for all income received.
If you were to draw Venn Diagrams. And, then were tasked by the White House to place some "X's" inside the circles ... How much area would you give the Tea Party?
How much goes to Religion?
What if there's a need, at the White House, to inoculate most Americans against what the White House sees as damage from a few?
If you let fly the word "taxes" ... are you shooting arrows into the air ... and they're not landing on anything that brings down food to you?
So not only did Meade fail his basic logic course, you, Ms. Althouse, use the phrase "His own words" to refer to something Obama manifestly did NOT say.
I'm flabbergasted at the intellectual sloppiness on display. You and Meade should take a nap, maybe have some caffeine before you embarrass yourselves further.
==================
Called by a poster, and they appear right.
Bad logic, and a badly misleading post from Althouse putting words in Obama's mouth.
Pasta, The EITC manages to increase the incomes of very low income people while reasonably maintaining their incentive to work. Do you really have a problem with that?
"Garage apparently supports strippers, waitresses and PIRATES not doing their legal civic duty and filing the proper paperwork for all income received."
Reminds me.
Damn it Pasta don't leave now- was about to quiz the young in's on stagflation.
Learn it Liberals-you did it once and you could do it again!
There's got to be some twisted, dishonest spin I'm not getting. He isn't this dumb.
You must be new here.
Hey, cut garage some slack. Voting multiple times in today's recall elections doesn't leave much time for thoughtful commenting.
Back in 1936, things were very, very bad, in this country. Still mired deep in the big bad Great Depression.
Hoover, however, was knocked out of the ballgame, back in 1932.
FDR won his second term. And, then a third one. And, a 4th one after that, too.
Bad times don't make people change horses.
There's a game afoot. Now. And, the GOP ain't winning it!
He isn't this dumb.
Oh, yes he is.
And that is one of the things that bothers me about the commentary about The Won...the whole "I know Obama is so smart, but.
Um, no, no he's not.
Bad times don't make people change horses.
Do you have fond memories of Hoover's second term?
Reminds me. i.e., International Talk Like A Pirate Day
Notice how there's no "international talk like a ninja day" cuz, obviously, ninjas are way cooler than pirates.
Ninjas also file all their tax paperwork properly, cash jobs or not.
As a CPA who actually understands taxes, now that I understand your faux-argument, I can unequivocably call you a disingenuous liar.
Busted.
The fact that people have taxes deducted is not paying a tax? You're seriously a CPA?
Oooh can we get stripper pirates?
"Ugh-we could also discuss the Fed doing negative interest rates....
But when my friend brought it up a couple of days ago-I thought he was joking."
yeah - and it won't help.
And now growth has stalled in Germany. Things are not looking good.
The Eurozone has calmed down for now, but I expect it to have problems again in the next year.
Hoover didn't get a second term, putz!
The fact that people have taxes deducted is not paying a tax?
Not when you not only get 100% of it back, but can get MORE on top of it depending on how you file.
Please, for the love of God, GM, stop this.
The fact that people have taxes deducted is not paying a tax?
Until now I thought people were being unfair, and that you were simply trying to restart the argument over whether FICA is a tax.
But this...
this is just the absolute pinnacle of stupidity.
Quoting bad logic and then doubling down on it kicks the shit out of a typo, don't it?
"You must be new here."
I think I know garage pretty well. I think he's being dishonest (again), not stupid.
However, I'm always prepared to change my opinion as new facts present themself.
Talking about "cash" and taxes ...
There was a time waiters failed to report their tips.
Then along came the IRS and set standards.
The IRS won the argument because they audited the shit out of waiters.
"The fact that people have taxes deducted is not paying a tax? You're seriously a CPA?"
See. Dishonesty.
Please -when it comes to raising taxes and Prez Obama, what does common sense have to do with it?
The IRS won the argument because they audited the shit out of waiters.
What about pirates? I know they don't work for paper money (sea water tends to ruin it), but doubloons are still "cash".
"Ok I will repeat the question: If more revenue is needed why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts and why does he want to extend the payroll tax cut?"
Because, as you nitwits never fail to see, Obama is serving the interests of the banks, the corporations, and Wall Street.
In other words, he's a Republican! (As I've long said.)
Apparently, AA posted a puzzle, and then went off somewhere.
"Notice how there's no "international talk like a ninja day" cuz, obviously, ninjas are way cooler than pirates."
Ninjas don't talk. Talking nijas are dead ninjas.
"...Your claim that 50% pay no income tax is demonstrably and laughably false. Anyone that works pays income tax.."
LOL!
Sometimes I do believe garage is really a conservative who is trying to make liberals look dumber than they really are.
"Bad times don't make people change horses.
There's a game afoot. Now. And, the GOP ain't winning it!"
Look at how unemployment fell under FDR.
A good rule to follow in US politics is that if unemployment is a problem, unemployment has to fall or say adios to the President.
The economy ain't going anywhere for at least the next year or two = Republican Pres.
This race is going to a Republican unless the nominee is caught with a dead girl or a live boy.
And even then the nominee could win.
Don't worry all, Althouse's kid will post soon demanding that garage's post be deleted.
Ninjas don't talk.
They might after they clock out for the day. Besides, this one does. You can even ask him questions.
(one of the funniest on-going bits on the net, btw)
I think Meade has been a bad influence on Althouse.
How do we know that's a real ninja, Scott?
I think I know garage pretty well. I think he's being dishonest (again), not stupid.
You said 50% do not pay income tax. Obviously people pay federal income taxes such as payroll taxes, and investment taxes. Again, who is being dishonest and/or stupid?
And now growth has stalled in Germany.
Depressing-I actually wasn' t aware of that.
*******
Ed-School is what happens when kids without math skills prevail on campus.
Back in 1950, Dr. Richard Feynman would be leaving Cornell. (He's gonna accept an offer to Caltech. Even though he had turned down Princeton. And, Chicago, beforehand.)
By this time his 4 QED papers had been published. And, this is what he said, then, about Cornell:
Caltech, in addition to Pasadena's better weather, had the appeal of not being a liberal arts university, where [Feynman] said: "the theoretical broadening which comes from having many humanities subjects on campus is offset by the general dopiness of the people who study these things."
Quantum Man. Just published.
He said it. His own words.
Of course he did, because he's "The One."
Wait,...
How do we know that's a real ninja, Scott?
The same way you can know that the administration saved or created millions of jobs. The same way you can know the administration had this economy turned around until a string of "bad luck" put the car back in the proverbial ditch.
Outrage. Rude teabagger 'assaults' President Obama
wv: derfeces... that sounds about right!
"Obviously people pay federal income taxes such as payroll taxes, and investment taxes."
Stupid is back in the running.
Wow, that's pretty dishonest Meade/Ann.
You selectively parsed out a snippet of text from a full sentence to completely twist what he said. What you present does not resembel what was said.
He said Republicans would not raise taxes under any circumstances. Very different from what you allege he said.
You really have some lax morals to lie so easily. Just more evidence that conservatives today are too far gone to reason with. This is lunacy.
My ancien Acadian relatives are from both sides of the Saint John so it's in reference to Madawaska-in it's historical sense.
Wow. I've been to the town of Madawaska in Maine a few times. Just about as far north latitudinally as you can get in the lower 48. Nice town; that whole part of Northern Maine and New Brunswick is unbelievably remote. Your ancestors must've been made of some stern stuff to survive up there.
Obviously people pay federal income taxes such as payroll taxes, and investment taxes.
You were doing so well until that last part. Assuming that by "investment taxes" you mean capital gains taxes, there's the slight problem (for you) that capital gains are simply one component of personal income. So if the data show that half of households pay no income tax, that means those households are not paying taxes on either regular income or on capital gains.
Obviously people pay federal income taxes such as payroll taxes,
And here I thought the payroll tax (which by statute is not the federal income tax) was a retirement savings plan.
Gee, who's lying now?
So if the data show that half of households pay no income tax,
The data does not show that.
So if the data show that half of households pay no income tax, that means those households are not paying taxes on either regular income or on capital gains
Now Chip, why did you have to go and do that?
Garbage was just thinking he was so clever and informed on an issue...
This is where I get off.
Just more evidence that conservatives today are too far gone to reason with.
I realize that it's a long thread, but you really ought to read the many critical comments by the conservative regulars here before posting shit like this.
What if you come to a place and realize the democraps really know how to ride out storms ... while the GOP doesn't?
garage mahal said...
The data does not show that.
Actually it does.
But you've beclowned yourself to the point of irrelevance.
Hats off to John Althouse Cohen:
My mom's and stepdad's inference is illogical. As Obama said, the Republicans in the debate said they would essentially never raise taxes. (For example, even if they got 10 times as much of what they wanted in spending cuts, they still wouldn't accept a slight tax increase even as a grudging compromise.) Obama says this extreme position defies common sense. What follows from that? Only that Obama thinks we should consider raising taxes sometimes. Not that Obama thinks taxes should always be raised.
But I don't think the post should be deleted, because of what it tells us about the authors of this blog.
And also because this post proves the point I have made for some time that conservatives have not the slightest compunction about lying when it serves their goal to bash the other tribe.
They want to put the Ten Commandments in our public buldings, buit not actually follow them. Number Nine:
"Thous shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Sympathies to Mr Cohen.
On a strictly literal level, yes, the post is wrong and should probably be corrected.
On substance, there seem to be two problems with interpreting what Obama said, both having to do with context. First, Obama is making these comments in the context of demanding higher taxes. Second, it is by no means clear that Republicans are against any tax increases.
The Republicans are only unreasonable if they refuse to increases taxes at all. But now, in the context of a recession, it is not at all unreasonable to resist tax increases. I think supporting tax increases expecting it to raise revenue probably *is* unreasonable. Experience in 1982 and 1997 both demonstrate that tax decreases can increase revenue. Would tax cuts increase revenue right now, in this situation? Hard to say.
Given the context, I don't think it's outrageous to read Obama's comment in the way Althouse did. It's a mistake to be sure, but an understandable one.
garage mahal said...
The data does not show that.
Oh, actually it does:
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
But by renaming the payroll tax as an income tax, you will march on in your silliness.
When I pay for something at the store, and sales tax is deducted, that's really not "paying" a tax. It's .....it's...it's.....something else!
Given the context, I don't think it's outrageous to read Obama's comment in the way Althouse did. It's a mistake to be sure, but an understandable one.
This is nonsense and in any case I would swear before the sacred razor of Occam that Meade was joking.
garage mahal said...
When I pay for something at the store, and sales tax is deducted, that's really not "paying" a tax.
But of course nobody said people didn't pay sales taxes.
You silly little liar.
The Democrats have managed to transform from tax-and-spend liberals into spend-and-tax liberals. First spend the country into oblivion, then leave it for the Republicans to try and raise enough revenue to cover their tab.
What must be remembered about Obama's "balanced approach" is that the baseline that they were using for their debt limit talks included the "stimulus", TARP, etc. - i.e. federal spending of around 24% or so of GDP, as contrasted to the 19-20% from, say, 2006, before the Dems retook Congress.
This is the reality that you have to keep in mind when you get into these debates. The Dems massively increased spending as a proportion of GDP, and now are willing to give back some of the future growth from that baseline in trade for tax increases.
So, yes, they now are spend and tax liberals, instead of their more traditional tax and spend liberalism. They massively increased spending, and now want tax increases to help cover some of those spending increases - in the midst of a recession.
So, keeping that in mind, is it really that good for Republicans to agree to even a 10-1 ratio, when Obama in particular keeps talking from that 24% or so of GDP baseline?
conservatives have not the slightest compunction about lying when it serves their goal to bash the other tribe.
Sort of like garage mahal's tax analysis?
Garage, you are the single most fact-resistant person I have ever seen on the internet. It's glorious, it its own depressing way. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Claim:
50% of people pay no federal income tax.
Response:
garage mahal said...
When I pay for something at the store, and sales tax is deducted, that's really not "paying" a tax.
Gee, who's the idiot?
Oh, actually it does:
Show the data that 50% in this country pay no income tax.
When I pay for something at the store, and sales tax is deducted, that's really not "paying" a tax. It's .....it's...it's.....something else!
A sales tax is not an income tax. Tough to understand?
"Fredo, you're my older brother, and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever."
(Tbe Godfather, 1972)
When I pay for something at the store, and sales tax is deducted...
Wow. I'd love to shop where you do, garage. All the stores I patronize add the sales tax instead of deducting it.
Sort of like garage mahal's tax analysis?
I'll ask you as well, show me the data. It shouldn't take more than 5 mins. 12:34 my time
I think I know garage pretty well. I think he's being dishonest (again), not stupid.
However, I'm always prepared to change my opinion as new facts present themself.
You may recall that garage is one of the ones who thinks that Social Security is in dandy shape because it has a bunch of treasury bonds in its massive "trust fund". That alone should make you reconsider your opinion on the matter.
garage mahal said...
Show the data that 50% in this country pay no income tax
I linked to it you blathering idiot.
You may recall that garage is one of the ones who thinks that Social Security is in dandy shape because it has a bunch of treasury bonds in its massive "trust fund".
Not only that, but now he's saying that those payments are an income tax.
Why, it is almost as if he's incoherent or something.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
He seems to be talking about the world according to Kos.
I think he comes here after downloading his talking points from the usual lefty sites. Then he's bewildered and lost when he gets actual facts thrown at him.
"... The fact that people have taxes deducted is not paying a tax? You're seriously a CPA?.."
Try this. I buy a flat screen tv for $1000 and then send in the paperwork for the $1000 rebate.
Would you argue that I paid for the tv?
"You may recall that garage is one of the ones who thinks that Social Security is in dandy shape because it has a bunch of treasury bonds in its massive "trust fund". That alone should make you reconsider your opinion on the matter."
Oh, I admit there's evidence to support both propositions.
Chip/Jay
Just waiting for that data. Soon?
Would you argue that I paid for the tv?
Garage would, apparently. I would suggest that the government probably also subsidized your postage.
Joe Schmoe
Thanks.
Shoot I think I've only driven through Madawaska never got to stop.
I lived up there for awhile- and had the inside of my nose freeze.
Damn does that hurt!
At 20 below or more some real nasty stuff happens.
Oh, I admit there's evidence to support both propositions.
Sure. And they're not mutually exclusive, either.
good lord, see what you've started here, Meade?
garage mahal said...
Chip/Jay
Just waiting for that data. Soon?
8/16/11 12:40 PM
I linked to it you blathering idiot.
Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash.
Link to the data showing that if you work for cash you don't pay income tax.
Thanks in advance.
show me the data.
1. Jay gave you a link at 12:30.
2. I reject the idea that it's always somebody else's job to find for you the data that contradict whatever ridiculous claims you make here.
Here's a simple rule: If you make a factual claim. you provide the link to the evidence. Otherwise, I'll just presume that it's as baseless a claim as all the others you make.
Garage, the data was linked to at least ten minutes before you asked for it. If you're not going to actually read the posts, why are you even here?
I wonder if these people would have been better off working for cash????
income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.
Or is this the point where we say sales taxes are income taxes garbage?
"Sure. And they're not mutually exclusive, either."
True. But in an effort to make sense of the world, it helps to simplify things into categories.
Let me add that our current tax rates would be just fine if we weren't in a recession and fighting now 3 wars. We would likely be running a slight surplus. The only thing that really ran us negative during much of the Bush years were the wars we got into as a result of being attacked on 9/11.
Any Republican who is going to get my vote is going to have to convince me that he or she knows that we have a spending problem right now, not a taxing problem.
And, that is what you need to keep in mind with this debate - that a candidate may allow that he might raise taxes for some ratio of spending cuts, implicitly agrees with Obama, et al. to some extent as to spending levels, and denies, at some level, that the problem is spending, not taxation.
Keep in mind too, that the proper view of a Republican running for President here is what he or she would do, given a Republican Congress, since that seems more likely right now than a Republican President (the Dems have some 23 seats up for reelection in the Senate this coming election, many in swing or Red states, and only a 3 seat majority). These candidates should not be talking from the point of a current member of Congress operating with a Democratic President and Senate. If they win the White House, they should be in a political position to cut spending back to 2006 levels without raising taxes.
Point to one campaign where dirt wasn't thrown? HELLO(!
John Adams sure sullied up Thomas Jefferson, folks.
If you see politics, and insults aren't thrown ... you've NEVER seen politics played at all.
By the way. Obama is setting the pace, here.
You're arguing taxes?
Even illegals who get jobs where they get their pay in checks, pay taxes. And, they've got no way to retrieve this money, either, at the end of the year.
While some taxation plans ... (like the one in California that had hoped to snag Amazon ... turned out to kill businesses ... who are moving out of state.)
Perhaps? Well, it's possible the White House figures all those who are "moving" ... aren't gonna affect California's electoral college count. Which is in the bag for the BLUE contendahs.
Wisconsin's 10, meanwhile, is categorized as a toss up.
Makes politics even more interesting, when you keep trying to figure out the math.
Would you argue that I paid for the tv?
What would you argue we do about that? Repeal the Bush tax cuts? The EITC is a riff off of the negative income tax first proposed by none other than Milton Friedman.
Okay, Ann, make up with your son and move on to another topic. Isn't there a recall election today?
"Let me add that our current tax rates would be just fine if we weren't in a recession and fighting now 3 wars."
Even with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the deficit was *declining* from 2004 on, until the bank crisis. Without the banking crisis and recession, we probably wouldn't be running a deficit now even *with* Iraq and Afghanistan going on. I don't think the deficit is a particularly good argument against the wars (not that there aren't others to be had). But, then, we're speaking of a magical world in which there was no recession and banking crisis.
aaand, @12:52, one hour and 19 minutes after posting his initial incorrect comment, garage points to the furry-tailed, acorn-storing rodent somewhere away from the topic.
Like clockwork.
I think the Laffer curve is in different places for income taxes, as opposed to capital gains taxes.
Bush's income tax cut in 2001 probably put us on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. I suspect tax receipts to the government went down. Certainly it did not seem spur economic growth. (The Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan tax cuts were far more dramtic).
However, the success of Bush's 2003 capital gains tax cut suggests that we should be cutting capital gains taxes even more, not raising them higher.
It's entirely possible that dropping the capital gains tax rate to 13%, or even 10%, would bring more tax dollars into the government.
Why? Because the people who are investing capital are focusing all their energy on putting those dollars to work. This investment creates jobs, products, services.
Investment is a far better use of a dollar than spending it or saving it. Investing dollars is putting dollars to use in the smartest possible way. It literally improves the world, giving us automobiles, the internet, air conditioning, wonder drugs, and countless other goods and services.
"The EITC is a riff off of the negative income tax first proposed by none other than Milton Friedman."
And he's off on a different topic, having had his hat handed to him.
Oh, by the way, Milton Friedman didn't "first propose" the idea of a negative income tax. Where the hell do you get this stuff? Friedman used the idea, but didn't "first propose" it.
Garage,
Are you that ignorant or just dishonest? Just like I wondered about Obama during his campaign.
@SaintCroix, The "wrong" side of the Laffer curve is the one where cutting the tax rate increases revenue.
It's the "wrong" side b/c you're getting the adverse economic effects of high tax rates w/o getting the revenue to pay for whatever stuff the government is supposed to provide.
No sanely managed government is in a region of the L.C. where tax cuts increase revenue.
Whether or not we're being sanely managed is, of course, always an open question.
And he's off on a different topic, having had his hat handed to him.
...and without saying whether the tv was paid for if the buyer got a 100% rebate.
I thought Meade's twist on the words was great comedy. I thought more people here got our sense of humor!
garage mahal said...
The EITC is a riff off of the negative income tax first proposed by none other than Milton Friedman.
On top of this being a lie, note the typical patter of running away from a topic you were proven spectaularly wrong on.
Shocking.
".... What would you argue we do about that? Repeal the Bush tax cuts? The EITC is a riff off of the negative income tax first proposed by none other than Milton Friedman..."
I was pointing out your absurd notion that having income tax deducted but getting it all back is the same as paying taxes.
But I stated before, repeal the Bush tax cuts, reinstate the cap gains rate and we raise $300 billion more annually. Now we just have a $1.3 trillion deficit. Now what? Want to concede we are spending too much or should we tax more?
Here's a simple rule: If you make a factual claim. you provide the link to the evidence.
1. I did not make the original claim that 50% pay no income tax.
2. Jay's link does not show 50% pay no income tax.
3. Anyone that earns a paycheck and can read will see other federal taxes are withheld from it besides income tax. If you wish to argue that's not really paying a tax, you are hopeless.
"... Are you that ignorant or just dishonest?..'
Honestly I'm going with all of the above. It seems to be a trademark of liberals nowadays.
More progressive? 50% don't pay income taxes now.
@Original Mike
Since you have a problem with this, what is your proposed solution?
Here is the Tax Policy Center report on why some people pay no income tax.
46% of all "tax units" pay no income tax or receive a refund.
About half of the your income tax shirkers pay no income tax because...their income is too low. People who make less money each year than the standard deductions have zero AGI. Should we lower the level of income we consider the bare minimum for subsistance? How much revenue will that policy change on 23% of "tax units" add to the treasury? At least you would reduce the number of income tax avoiders by half!
Another 22% of your free-loaders receive only Social Security payments as income, and these payments are exempt from income tax. Should we tax Social Security payments?
Neither of these groups accounting for 72% of your 46% who "pay no income tax" are because of "tax expenditures" (i.e "loopholes" if you are cynical).
Maybe you can go after the loopholes that benefit the elderly, children, or the working poor? What don't you start making the tough decisions?
I thought more people here got our sense of humor!
Ah, the classic professorial dodge when having an error pointed out. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
Does it ever work?
Anyone that earns a paycheck and can read will see other federal taxes are withheld from it besides income tax. If you wish to argue that's not really paying a tax, you are hopeless.
Of course nobody is "arguing" that.
You are such a shameless and dishonest liar it is pathethic.
Jay's link does not show 50% pay no income tax.
Really? What does it show?
And how much progress have you made on the claim that when you're working for cash you don't pay income taxes?
Source please?
aaand, @12:52, one hour and 19 minutes after posting his initial incorrect comment, garage points to the furry-tailed, acorn-storing rodent somewhere away from the topic.
I answered a post by Hoosier. Blame him.
"3. Anyone that earns a paycheck and can read will see other federal taxes are withheld from it besides income tax. If you wish to argue that's not really paying a tax, you are hopeless."
This is as close an admission of being wrong as you will see. Because Garage can't read (or chooses not to), he never noticed we were talking about income taxes (even though it was pointed out to him over and over again).
And of course, the link said exactly what everyone said it did.
Even Politifact agreed when Cantor made the same claim. They agreed that the nearly-50% claim was true. Garage is making excuses now.
Claim:
50% of people pay no federal income tax.
Response:
garage mahal said...
Anyone that earns a paycheck and can read will see other federal taxes are withheld from it besides income tax. If you wish to argue that's not really paying a tax, you are hopeless.
Gee, who's the idiot?
If you wish to argue that's not really paying a tax, you are hopeless.
If you get that exact amount back at the end of the year, leaving aside the fact that you can, in fact, get MORE than that amount, how did you pay anything for the year?
garage mahal said...
I answered a post by Hoosier. Blame him.
Actually, you didn't.
You avoided the direct question posed to you.
Want to guess why you did that?
I see commenter "J" is talking about the old "fairness" canard to justify higher taxes. Milton Friedman refuted that on Donahue in 1979, and the refutation still stands.
I'm not so sure that Mead's logic can be faulted so out-of-hand.
Virtually, is a flexible term which doesn't lend itself to logic. I would suggest a meaning which I think most will agree means the same thing. The Republicans would only raise taxes if it was the only possible solution.
That Obama thinks this defies common sense, logically means that the president would raise taxes even if there was another solution. So if he would raise taxes when they are not needed, when wouldn't he raise them? Only if we had a giant surplus? This will virtually never happen.
Jay lying through his fucking teeth, again....
Claim:
50% of people pay no federal income tax.
Actual claim:
More progressive? 50% don't pay income taxes now.
@garage--Read my initial response to you @11:38; I don't feel the need to add to it. The question of whether SS is a "tax" or not has been debated to death. But you didn't stop there, you doubled down on stupid claims like withholding=taxation.
@Triangle Man--Thanks for injecting some rationality into the discussion.
Even with a completely flat tax, there's a tendency for people to vote for wasteful spending. (Think about your incentives for ordering in a restaurant when you're going to split the check equally with a large number of people.)
"About half of the your income tax shirkers ..."
Shirkers is your word, not mine, man. Don't stick words in my mouth.
Don't quibble, GM. You once claimed that "almost half" of the stimulus was tax cuts when the actual percentage, that I remember you owing up to, was 37%. That's a helluva lot bigger discrepancy than the 3 or 4 percent we're talking about here.
Garage simply doesn't understand the terms and boundaries of the discussion. His last comment just doubled down on his own ignorance. He doesn't pay attention.
Well, I didn't say "federal", and I don't know what the level is for state income taxes, but I'd be willing to bet that there's a pretty high correlation between federal and state income taxes.
Gotta go for awhile.
"Ah, the classic professorial dodge when having an error pointed out. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention." Now, that's hilarious. Sorry, Chip, the error was so obvious as to be obviously intentional. The errors here were those who thought it was really subtle and only they could see it.
Sorry, Chip, the error was so obvious as to be obviously intentional.
Wow. Althouse's son doesn't get her humor, but it's obvious to almost everyone else.
Whatever you say.
Shirkers is your word, not mine, man. Don't stick words in my mouth.
Fair enough. What's your beef then? Are they paying their fair share or not?
46% of all "tax units" pay no income tax or receive a refund. About half of the your income tax shirkers pay no income tax because...their income is too low. People who make less money each year than the standard deductions have zero AGI. Should we lower the level of income we consider the bare minimum for subsistance?
Yes.
How much revenue will that policy change on 23% of "tax units" add to the treasury?
I don’t know but I do know that repealing the Bush tax cuts and reinstating the pre-Bush cap gains rate will generate about $300 billion more annually. That leaves us with a deficit of $1.3 to 1.4 trillion. I would like to hear your suggestions on how to close that gap?
Maybe you can go after the loopholes that benefit the elderly, children, or the working poor? What don't you start making the tough decisions?
Perhaps we will have to since even with reinstating the pre-Bush tax rates we will still need to be borrowing nearly about a third of what the budget calls for.
Again, I eagerly await some explanation from the progressives on how to close the unsustainable budget deficit.
Triangle - define "fair share".
About half of the your income tax shirkers pay no income tax because...their income is too low.
Is this supposed to be some sort of argument?
You realize "too low" is set by statute and not by some standard of what constitutes bare minimum for subsistance, right?
Wanna have some idea why we are so screwed?
"Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that the Obama administration has a jobs program already in place — and it’s food stamps. When asked about new numbers that show one in every seven Americans now receiving food stamps from the federal government, Vilsack said that’s good news. Food stamps create jobs . . ."
Face-palm.
Garage: According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between Urban Institute and Brookings, figured the number of people not paying Federal Tax at nearly half. This was in 2009 so it is unlikely that the number has gone up since.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001289
@Jay
You do realize that...
Yes, I realize there is no objective measure of "bare minimum for subsistance". The last example I saw was that an annual income of $26,400 for a family of four would lead to no tax liability. Where would you set it?
"Wow. Althouse's son doesn't get her humor" Well, it was actually his step-father's humor.
Triangle man would you stipulate that if 47% of filers don't pay income tax, that we are on an unsustainable course?
Chip, thanks for the clarification.
No sanely managed government is in a region of the L.C. where tax cuts increase revenue.
Well, we've cut high income taxes dramatically 3 times, and the tax receipts went up dramatically all 3 times.
Reagan slased the rate from 70% to 28%. And more money went to the government! Amazing.
This is even more dramatic in the case of capital gains.
Consider this hypothetical: we lower the capital gains tax from 20% to 10%. That encourages a lot of people to sell ("sell, sell while the rates are low!"). Since more people are selling, it brings in a huge amount of taxes into the government.
The government doesn't want people holding stock forever. It wants people to buy and sell stock over and over, shifting money around, every transaction bringing that 10% fee into the government kitty.
Buffett didn't pay any taxes when capital gains was 40% becuase he didn't frickin' sell anything.
A thank you - to Ann, Calypso Facto, and the others who got my humor.
The last example I saw was that an annual income of $26,400 for a family of four would lead to no tax liability. Where would you set it?
Actually, it is $50,000:
The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.
I would set it below $50,000.
That leaves us with a deficit of $1.3 to 1.4 trillion. I would like to hear your suggestions on how to close that gap?
On a completely superficial basis, eliminating the EITC would cut about $50 billion from the deficit. Congratulations. Now there's only $1.25 to $1.35 trillion to go.
Since any wage subsidy (which is what the EITC is) partly reduces employers' labor costs as well as increasing low-wage workers' incomes, eliminating the EITC will act partly as a tax on employment. Excellent idea!
Meade, Los Angeles is full of baristas whose jokes were accessible to a tiny fraction of their audiences.
I had no idea it would spark such controversy.
wv: "hopho" No need to be so ho ho hopho phobic.
"Should we lower the level of income we consider the bare minimum for subsistance? "
Yes or we should add to a person's taxable income the total value of the govt assistance they received like food stamps, free housing, Pell grants, welfare, fre day care etc.
Wait, belay it, stop, strike that, reset, never mind, cancel, delete, reload, mulligan, do over, just kidding, whoa, just a sec, redact, etc etc etc. It was all a joke.
Man, that joke struck a nerve.
I stand by my comment: Who knows what the fuck Obama is saying.
Triangle man would you stipulate that if 47% of filers don't pay income tax, that we are on an unsustainable course?
I don't think that percentage is all that informative. I think it sounds scary until you look into the reasons that people have no tax liability.
I think the size of the deficit is a good indicator that the course is unsustainable. We need spending cuts and probably need to raise marginal tax rates at the higher end of the income scale. Not being an economist, I can't say how much they need to come up at which income levels or for how long, but we need to definitively narrow the deficit.
On a completely superficial basis, eliminating the EITC would cut about $50 billion from the deficit. Congratulations. Now there's only $1.25 to $1.35 trillion to go.
What does an across-the-board 5% reduction for each department's operating budget, plus 5% salary reduction for all members of congress and all administration workers GS10 or higher do?
Consider this hypothetical: we lower the capital gains tax from 20% to 10%. That encourages a lot of people to sell ("sell, sell while the rates are low!").
This is exactly right. It's also why the short-term impact of a CG tax cut on revenue is not a reliable indicator of its long-term effect.
In the short run, increases in the tax rates on regular income are almost certain to increase revenue, but not nearly as much in the long run.
Seems to me that a reasonable policy for the long run is to tax capital gains as regular income, and keep the tax rate as low as feasible.
Just noticed Alphalfa Liberal seems to be feeling particularly prickly today.
Must be recall anxiety.
The last example I saw was that an annual income of $26,400 for a family of four would lead to no tax liability. Where would you set it?
Actually, it is $50,000:
My household almost hit that happy target a few years ago, but then I went and did some freelance work and crushed myself with self-employment taxes.
Now that we've argued the 47% to death, anyone care to argue marginal tax rates?
The teabugs got their No Tax-chant going again. TAXES ARE THE DEVVLL! No stopping 'em.
'Zine time for A-tards.
Actually, it is $50,000:
Jay, yes but that combines two categories of tax reduction. The example I gave for a family of four would pay no taxes without any "tax expenditures". Half of the income tax non-payers pay no income tax just because of the standard deductions. It a smaller fraction that come in under the zero tax wire with the tax credits at higher incomes.
Only 7% of the non-payers had income between $50-75k. A quarter of these used credits for children and the working poor to get to zero.
"When was the last time not increasing taxes was part of the Democrat plan?"
Well, there's John F. Kennedy. But perhaps they had a different kind of Democrat back then.
Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
--John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
Only 7% of the non-payers had income between $50-75k. A quarter of these used credits for children and the working poor to get to zero.
Oops, that should have been 4% of the non-payers had income between $50k-$75k.
Actually it looks like The Washington Post is misquoting him.
Here is what he said according to the transcript at The Chicago Tribune which I'm going to lean towards because it has much more of the exchange.
*****
In terms of boosting folks' confidence, I think people would actually feel pretty confident if they felt like their leaders were working together. I mean, that's my belief. (Applause.) But I also think that they're looking for some practical common sense. I know it's not election season yet, but I just have to mention, the debate the other party candidates were having the other day, when they were asked to reduce our deficit, reduce our debt, would you be willing to take a deal where it was $5 of spending cuts for every $1 of increased revenues, who would take it? Everybody said no. They said, how about 10 to 1? Ten dollars of cuts for every dollar increase in revenue? Are you saying that none of you would take it -- and everybody raised their hand. None of them would take it. Think about that. I mean, that's just not common sense.
Chicago Tribune
So I really don't get where JAC's interpretation holds true at all.
John Althouse Cohen said...
My mom's and stepdad's inference is illogical. As Obama said, the Republicans in the debate said they would essentially never raise taxes.
I tried to get him to consider context. I also pointed out to him that the media was most likely feeding him a sound bite here.
First the Republicans didn't say anything. They raised their hands to a yes/ no question asked by the media.
And of course now the Left get to slam them for lack of nuance.
And even Obama is more fair than JAC-he doesn't say that the Republicans said-
never.-that's JAC's term.
And "virtually any circumstance" is the phrase used by the reporter for The Washington Post.
Well, there's John F. Kennedy. But perhaps they had a different kind of Democrat back then.
I don't know, but I do know that they had a different kind of tax code back then. In 1963 the maximum tax rate on personal income was 87 percent.
I think the size of the deficit is a good indicator that the course is unsustainable. We need spending cuts and probably need to raise marginal tax rates at the higher end of the income scale.
I think that before you can justify tax increases, that you first need to justify the federal spending increase from 19-20% of GDP to 24-25% of GDP between 2007 after the Democrats retook Congress through 2010 when they lost the House. As I noted earlier, Obama's "balanced approach" locks in this increase of GDP allocated to federal spending.
What does an across-the-board 5% reduction for each department's operating budget, plus 5% salary reduction for all members of congress and all administration workers GS10 or higher do?
I'm not sure, but I think it would amount to no more than about $100 billion.
The problem is entitlements.
@Kurt:
Nice clip at 1:09.
I don't have it in front of me now but David Mamet of all people does a credible job of parsing the difference between greed and ambition in his latest book.
If I recall correctly, Mamet does a good job describing how lefist policy thwarts ambition too.
edit:
Cripes The Washington Post isn't misquoting Obama-they're spinning it for him.
The problem with raising capital gains taxes is that it inevitably shifts money from investment to consumption. Now, a good demand side economist would argue that was what was needed. But, that theory is closely tied to Keynesian economics, which, as most of us (I do not include Garbage or J) understand failed miserably, and is a good part of why we are having this discussion.
You need investors to create businesses, and that is what capital gains taxes discourage by taxing gains on investments when moving from one investment to another, but delaying the taxation as long as you don't.
I think that before you can justify tax increases...
and we have sort of come full circle to the original post.
"Should we lower the level of income we consider the bare minimum for subsistance? "
Repeal the tax code in total. Consumption/Flat tax would most equitable.
It all comes down to perception. Republicans have always been opposed to tax increases. But these days they are so adamantly opposed to them on such a principled stand that it defies common sense. Maybe that is just a perception? Maybe they would want to raise revenue at some point to pay down the debt. But it sure doesn't seem like it - even if they were handed a very sweet 10 to 1 deal.
In 1963 the maximum tax rate on personal income was 87 percent.
But also note that the $400,000 threshold for this rate in 1963 would be income of $2.8 million in today's dollars, instead of the $379,150 it actually is. (And by "actually" I mean before AMT, which reduces this threshold below $200,000 for more than 1 million households)
and we have sort of come full circle to the original post.
Without mentioning Hitler or Palin. Must be a new record. I take that back. J may have mentioned either or both in one of his rambles. It's impossible to tell what poorly-written spambots will utter.
And JAC had this parting shot-
And for those who are saying the "essentially" provides for "wiggle room," I recommend listening to what Republicans have actually been saying. They've given themselves very little wiggle room.
If when he thought Republicans said "essentially" that left them very little wiggle room-than "essentially" should be one huge mother of an escape hatch for him.
Natch.
“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”
The problem is, of course, not that Republicans wouldn't raise taxes in virtually any circumstances, but rather, that they won't do so when the problem is spending, and not tax revenues. Obama is intentionally misleading the public here with his statement - he is the one who is inflexible, refusing to put any of those massive spending increases that his party got through Congress on the table for the debt ceiling compromise. So, we still have trains to nowhere, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies, ObamaCare, etc.
I will back Meade here - the President's position to our current financial situation is to increase taxes long before he will even consider cutting spending below the current baseline. Indeed, this is the man who said before he was elected that he would raise taxes on the "rich" just to make things more "fair", even if it did not raise any revenues (an admission that, even then, he understood at least something about the Laffer Curve).
So, yes, Meade's statement did not follow directly and logically from Obama's. Nevertheless, I do see the humor, because he is correct.
But these days they are so adamantly opposed to them on such a principled stand that it defies common sense. Maybe that is just a perception?
Maybe that's because hikes take effect right away but cuts are foisted out upon some future administration or Congress. A particular Congress lasts two years. The cuts need to take place in that time frame or there's no guarantee they will ever occur.
Guarantee the cuts come with the hikes, within the same time frame, and I suggest you'll hear more cooperation on the right.
Peter said...
"When was the last time not increasing taxes was part of the Democrat plan?"
Well, there's John F. Kennedy. But perhaps they had a different kind of Democrat back then.
Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
--John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
Hmm. Want to know a Democrat who would strongly disagree with that message to Congress? LBJ - the most evil president in U.S. history.
Jackie O believing LBJ was behind the hit on her husband makes even more sense, in that context.
Tax rate discussion usually result in assassinations.
The problem with raising capital gains taxes is that it inevitably shifts money from investment to consumption.
Not all income from investment = capital gains. There are also interest and dividends, which are currently taxed as regular income.
Also, not all capital gains are investment income. There are ways that some forms of what is clearly salary income can be structured contractually as capital gains. For example, if a corporate CEO is paid primarily through equity or its derivatives, do you really think that he shouldn't be taxed on that part of his compensation?
If you want to replace the income tax with a consumption tax, fine. But that's not the same thing as giving favorable tax treatment to capital gains.
madawaskan said...
edit:
Cripes The Washington Post isn't misquoting Obama-they're spinning it for him.
Precisely.
Post a Comment