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 401 – 482 of 482But these days they are so adamantly opposed to them on such a principled stand that it defies common sense.
What you keep ignoring is the increase in federal spending from 19-20% of GDP to 24-25% of GDP between when the Democrats retook Congress in 2006 and lost the House in 2010. We are talking approximately 5% of a very, very, large number.
The reason that refusing to increase taxes makes sense is that the opposite position accepts that the federal government should spend at a higher level (inflation adjusted, etc.) than than it was spending at in 2006.
The other issue that goes nameless is the underground cash economy.
It is growing fast.
The economically destroyed by real estate bubble tragedy keep the cash out of the banks since they have debt collectors after them.
That tipping point is about to be crossed by replacing cash dollars with computer scans at point of service/sale.
The amount of tax increase by that method when coupled with a Fair Tax scheme will be a real whopper of a tax increase.
garage mahal said...
"Tax rate discussion usually result in assassinations."
No, but thefts of power and property sometimes have.
Obama:$1 of increased revenues,
Republicans aren't against increased revenues. They are against increasing taxes.
Obama needs to stop pretending they are synonymous.
But also note that the $400,000 threshold for this rate in 1963 would be income of $2.8 million in today's dollars
Fine. Now also note that in 1963 the tax rate on the lowest income bracket was 20 percent, on incomes up to $29,000 in today's dollars. Today it's 15 percent.
The basic point is that the tax code Kennedy was talking about was vastly different (and much less rational) than today's. So quoting JFK as if he'd favor today's tax code is disingenuous at best.
Not all income from investment = capital gains. There are also interest and dividends, which are currently taxed as regular income.
And, hence one of the reasons why Buffett's primary company doesn't pay dividends.
Nevertheless, most capital gains are either from investments and/or inflation (which we shouldn't be taxing in the first place, since that encourages the government to inflate the currency in order to increase tax revenues). Plus, up until just recently, the biggest investment that most people ever had was their house, and that is also coincidentally, the place where they were most likely to face capital gains taxes.
I should add that, now that you bring it up, that taxing dividends is also counter-productive to investment, because those dividends have already been taxed once at the corporate level.
But the fact that dividends may be taxed at a higher rate than capital gains does not mean that taxing capital gains does not inhibit investment, but rather, that taxing dividends may inhibit it more.
Meade
It's layers upon layers-of well...it's one stinky onion.
*******
Matt-
I would like to know why the Republicans think the 10-1 deal is bad-but it seems like they didn't get a chance to respond to that during the debate.
Althouse wrote "people who don't get Meade's sense of humor."
Where is the joke Ann? Explain.
You and Meade don't want to stand by what you wrote so you just say it was a joke. I will say that Meade is a pussy.
I suspect that Ann's son John knows that Meade is a pussy who is just sponging off his mom.
Plus, up until just recently, the biggest investment that most people ever had was their house, and that is also coincidentally, the place where they were most likely to face capital gains taxes.
Oh FFS. Learn something about the
tax code before posting about it.
John's mom who is sponging off the taxpayers of Wisconsin to the tune of $160,000.00 for "virtually" a no show job.
Obama: $1 of increased revenues,
This must be remembered - that increasing tax rates often does not translate into a proportionate increase in tax revenues. The assumption that it does is called "static analysis", which has been debunked on numerous occasions over the last two decades. Nevertheless, Congress keeps mandating its use for GAO scoring, so that they can more easily justify spending and tax increases.
Now, it is unclear whether or not President Obama truly understands this, given his financial ignorance when he took office, but the alternative is that he is being intentionally misleading and dishonest.
chickenlittle: So far I've only read reviews of the Mamet book. I guess I should check it out.
With respect to the matter of greed, though, James Ogilvy's essay on greed in this volume was very useful in helping me refine my thinking about the subject.
Getting a bit tired about everyone not getting the joke.
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.”
I have not read Meade's comments closely enough over the years to know for sure, but I would guess that the joke is in being somewhat illogical by applying Obama-style logic to Obama's statement.
Obama's statement is not strictly logical (why is the Republican view "just not common sense"?); it's simply an assertion of what Obama believes to be true. And Meade's joke is in applying the same kind of logic to Obama's statement through the counter assertion that "Obama common sense says: Increase taxes under virtually any circumstance." It's rather like an ironic version of a reductio ad absurdum.
wv: slycl
Jay Retread, you suck and are an asshole. Way to get your anger out in blog comments. Your therapist will be proud of you.
Wow! over 400 comments and no mention of Palin.
"... Oh FFS. Learn something about the tax code before posting about it..."
When was that changed cause I remember a relative who had sold his home in CA then moved to Indiana and paid a chunk of cap gains tax due to purchasing a cheaper home. Granted it was awhile ago but I think you had a one time homeowner exemption.
and we have sort of come full circle to the original post.
Without mentioning Hitler or Palin.
Hitler was a Keynesian.
(Just for the record, that was intended as a joke. Now I've gotta get back to work. The orders for skinny grande lattes are backing up.)
A teenage boy goes into the Walgreens to buy condoms for the first time. The clerk scans the box's UPC code and says: "That'll be $5.49 plus tax."
The kid's eyes open wide and he says: "Tacks?! I thought they stayed on by themselves."
Wow! over 400 comments and no mention of Palin.
I mentioned her at 2:13pm when I said that no one had mentioned her.
The basic point is that the tax code Kennedy was talking about was vastly different (and much less rational) than today's.
On that, like most of what you write Chip, we can agree.
But Kennedy came up in reference to "When was the last time not increasing taxes was part of the Democrat plan?" "Kennedy" was a valid answer. And despite being a radically different code, we can still discuss whether or not the current rates are "stifling our national growth". And which changes to the code have been or would be effective in accomplishing our revenue and societal goals?
Crap. No one is going to read this far and appreciate my humor. Now I know how Meade must feel.
This whole discussion has been taxing and too illogical to follow-- but interesting none-the-less.
t-man: I picked up a book of mixed safe and slightly raunchy jokes as a pre-teen and that joke was in it, with the word "rubbers" in for "condoms". When my mother (knowingly) asked what I was reading and then for a sample joke, I read that one to her, because the only "rubbers" I knew about at the time were galoshes.
Oops. It's to her credit, that I'm only still slightly scarred by the embarrassment!
That says it all, folks. The man is illiterate on all matters economic. Lower taxes will increase revenues. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
Anyone that works pays income tax, unless you are working for cash.
A few more lines of code need adding, on an emergency basis.
What's the record for a number of comments in a thread hereabouts?
(minus, of course, any questions about the record number of comments in a thread)
The republicans should offer a $1.7t spending cut portioned as a reduction in pay for federal employees, retirees and "entitlement" receivers and call it a targeted tax hike. If it good enough to take money out of my pocket in tax increases its good enough to take money out of their pockets as well.
It bears repeating:
For the left, it's Never Enough, never enough taxes, never enough intrusion, never enough regulation.
"The denial of the possibility that there is an endpoint [to the welfare state] is crucial to the liberal enterprise."
~ Dr. William Voegeli
No one is going to read this far and appreciate my humor.
That made me smile.
No one is going to read this far and appreciate my humor.
t-man, I've read this far. Can't say I appreciate your humor though. Reminds my of the time I took a girl back to my place for a little fun. I asked her if she was on the pill, she said, "No, you told me you had a condominuim.'
"I don't think that percentage [47% pay no federal income taxes] is all that informative. I think it sounds scary until you look into the reasons that people have no tax liability."
It's scary because a system where half the people get to vote themselves free money is unsustainable.
T-man. I enjoyed that joke! Yours got a LOL from me while Dadvocate's
was just a quick chuckle.
Thanks MadisonMan, that means a lot to me. It almost makes up for the fact that my stepson doesn't understand me.
Scott- the record is 800 or a 1,000I think.
A wrongfully attributed quote still has meaning: A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
t-man - Today is National Tell A Joke Day. You've fulfilled your duty. AJ - my jokes are designed to elicit a groan rather than a laugh. Do you know what a cushmaker is?
No. Tell me what is a cushmaker.
Well, I'm late to the conversation, but, The Althouse Woman posts a lot of stuff. Every once in a while, she will post a stinker. This is one of those times.
A cushmaker is someone in the 50% who pay federal income taxes (not FICA, SocSec or sales taxes!) so that the other half of the population have more comfortable lives.
(See, I'm killing multiple birds with one stone here.)
It bears repeating:
For the left, it's Never Enough, never enough taxes, never enough intrusion, never enough regulation.
A testable hypothesis.
madawaskan -
The candidates reject the 10 for 1 deal because they don't believe the 10 exists. 10 has been promised before. Many times. Never actually happened.
'Blogger Scott M said...
Wow! over 400 comments and no mention of Palin.
I mentioned her at 2:13pm when I said that no one had mentioned her.'
Is a mention of no-mention a mention?
What you keep ignoring is the increase in federal spending from 19-20% of GDP to 24-25% of GDP between when the Democrats retook Congress in 2006 and lost the House in 2010. We are talking approximately 5% of a very, very, large number.
What were those "extra dollars" spent on?
It's scary because a system where half the people get to vote themselves free money is unsustainable.
You don't want me putting words in your mouth and you come up with this nonsense?
A fifth of those people "voting themselves free money" are those collecting their Social Security payments.
Hm. A fifth.
Hm. A fifth.
A point of order. It's pronounced "fiff" 'n shit like dat.
So a cushmaker is a taxpayer whose hard work and taxes enable the growing number of taxeaters.
I always celebrate the 4th with a fifth.
I think "We must start raising taxes on half the country!" an awesome campaign slogan for Republicans.
Will be hard to square with "We will not raise taxes under no circumstances!", but I hope they try it.
Bob_R
Thanks-that makes a lot of sense.
Wow. I have only read some of the comments but this is supremely boring.
Except for the condom joke.
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.
I googled capital gains tax, and looked at all the different tax structures for it in the world. I think Hong Kong has the smartest one.
Zero capital gains tax.
And in cases where people are given stock options as salary, they tax that at the regular income tax rate.
Seems to me that a reasonable policy for the long run is to tax capital gains as regular income
The problem with this approach (what we might call the "fair" approach, a.k.a. the Obama approach) is that there is substantial evidence that a dollar invested is a far more powerful economic force than a dollar saved or a dollar spent. Thus, to remove those dollars from the economy is to actually hurt the economy.
When the government taxes incomes, it is taking money out of the economy. And then the government spends that money, putting it back into the economy. You rob Peter to pay Paul. You are not helping the economy. But you're not hurting it, much, either. The government needs to pay for things the private sector won't do (armies, for instance). And you can argue (liberals certainly do) that there's a certain morality in creating a safety net for people.
But the problem with taxing capital gains is that you are taking investment dollars out of the economy. When you do that, you are robbing our future.
Some government expenditures are a type of investment. Schools and libraries, for instance. But most government money that is spent is just sloshing around.
It is dangerous and wrong to think that all dollars are created equal. No. Dollars used for investment are far smarter than dollars spent or dollars saved. Those dollars are in place precisely to make money.
When you spend money, or save it, you are not actually making money. But when you invest it, you are using your intelligence to make as much money as possible. You are creating wealth. You are improving society.
It is almost criminal to take this money (what we might call money-making money) out of circulation. If you leave it alone, that money will make money, and more wealth is created. If you take it out of circulation, our economy stagnates, and growth is lost.
Sure, tax income. We all spend income. Circle it around and spend it some more.
But don't tax investment.
Investment is awesome and we should encourage it as much as possible. It is by far the greatest use of money there is, and the most beneficial to our future.
Nothing like twisting words, even for "fun", to create a false sense of what someone is saying. What Obama is saying is common sense would suggest that when you are talking about the countries fiscal woes to say you would never increase revenue is not common sense. What he should have said is it is also irresponsible and reckless. So much yammering from the Republicans about the "deficit" masks the fact that it is not the deficit they hate, it is paying taxes. When in office they have simultaneously cut taxes and spent money buy borrowing. Deficits were never higher then they were under Reagan and Bush II, until the Republican Recession hit and the Democrats had the thankless job of cleaning up the mess Republican "Thinking" got us into. So twist all the words you want but if you really care about the national debt then it is just common sense to increase revenue to help pay for it....for the future generations, remember?? And for all you Republicans who want SS and Medicare eliminated it is easy...just send your checks back to the government. Voluntarily decline to take any government service.
"You don't want me putting words in your mouth and you come up with this nonsense?"
Oh, for crying out loud.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin
Really, T-Man, I had more respect for you than that. You see no concerns with over 50% of voters not paying into the system?
Talk about word-twisting. Pragmatist, you da man!
So much yammering from the Republicans about the "deficit" masks the fact that it is not the deficit they hate, it is paying taxes.
Actually, I think it may be both. Republican haters that they are.
But of course that doesn't mean Democrats LOVE deficits inside quotation marks and paying taxes. That would be illogical, right? And if we know anything about Democrats, it's that Democrats wrote the book on logical. Logicality. Logicalness.
Being smart.
And the Bush experience would indicate the Laffer curve is different for capital gains than for income.
A cut in income tax at these levels means a cut in tax revenues (and an increase in our debts).
A cut in capital gains tax at these levels would very likely increase tax revenues and decrease our debts.
So Obama raising the rate to 20% qualifies as insane.
He did it to punish the wealthy, the investor class, the people who make our economy go. They are making too much money, and he wants to stop it.
".. A fifth of those people "voting themselves free money" are those collecting their Social Security payments.."
Further proof the currnt system is unsustainable.
I know, math can be hard.
If 47% of income earners don't have to pay income tax, that's unsustainable. Period, full stop.
Pragmatist: So much yammering from the Republicans about the "deficit" masks the fact that it is not the deficit they hate, it is paying taxes.
That's odd --- since it's Democrats who seem to have major problems, you know, PAYING their taxes. Conservatives may dislike taxes, but they tend to pay them.
And for all you Republicans who want SS and Medicare eliminated it is easy...just send your checks back to the government. Voluntarily decline to take any government service.
Can I get the money confiscated from me first?
garage: I think "We must start raising taxes on half the country!" an awesome campaign slogan for Republicans.
True. Championing people making enough money to qualify to pay for taxes is a really, really bad policy.
I thought that the post was a joke, but with near 500 comments, I must be wrong - it was a match to lit the flame. Hope Mead is enjoying himself. :D
If 47% of income earners don't have to pay income tax, that's unsustainable. Period, full stop.
And a payroll tax is......?
...a loan that is paid back, in full, without interest. If the government gives every dime back --- then there isn't any actual contribution.
RULE #1: Obama knows how to campaign!
He's on it, now, because he wants to win in November 2012.
While I doubt, if ahead, the Tea Party holds any rallies. It's one of those fads, like Love Beads, and Polyester Suits, and Born Again ... that seems to look permanent. And, then the wave breaks. And, they roll away.
Yes. the tea party made its first appearance on April 15, 2009 or 2010. Nancy Pelosi, back then, sat in the Speaker's Office. Then? She moved down the hall.
Where she "waits."
And, taxes are what pays for what you see, when you see government.
Why the word "taxes?"
Maybe, it makes others think there's a way to pay for the party to continue forever?
Everybody who is earning less ... will pay less.
So, maybe? "Taxes" is the magic word.
Like it used to be on the Groucho Marx Show: YOU BET YOUR LIFE.
You say "taxes" ... and the duck flies down from the ceiling with a $50 bill in its mouth?
The word's been "tested." Or what's called "focus grouped."
When the government taxes incomes, it is taking money out of the economy. And then the government spends that money, putting it back into the economy. You rob Peter to pay Paul. You are not helping the economy. But you're not hurting it, much, either. The government needs to pay for things the private sector won't do (armies, for instance). And you can argue (liberals certainly do) that there's a certain morality in creating a safety net for people.
The problem though is that having the government spend the money instead of the person who earned the money does hurt the economy. Why? One reason is that a portion of it is skimmed off by the bureaucracy. Another part by rent seeking. And, probably most importantly, by the inability of the government to invest wisely. The result is a lower GDP than if the money had been left in the private sector.
As you note, some of this inefficiency is necessary and inevitable. We can quibble about the size and missions of our military, but we need a national army, navy, and air force to protect us. Some of Hillary's State Department is also probably necessary, etc.
But the rest of it? Much harder to justify if the goal is to fix our economy.
Triangle Man said...
A fifth of those people "voting themselves free money" are those collecting their Social Security payments.
"Their" payments?
You mean, the money I'm giving them, right?
John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
Oh goodie, we found one Democrat in the last 57 years who argued for lower tax rates.
Deficits were never higher then they were under Reagan and Bush II, until the Republican Recession hit and the Democrats had the thankless job of cleaning up the mess Republican "Thinking" got us into.
Hysterical.
Um, the "mess" hasn't been cleaned up.
Deficit spending does not "clean up the mess"
The federal deficit was $160 billion before Harry & Nancy took over.
Your talking points suck.
What Obama is saying is common sense would suggest that when you are talking about the countries fiscal woes to say you would never increase revenue is not common sense.
Except nobody is saying revenues shouldn't be increased.
You are operating under the faulty assumption that raising taxes = raising revenues.
Note you don't use the words raise taxes.
Gee, I wonder why?
I know, math can be hard.
If 47% of income earners don't have to pay income tax, that's unsustainable. Period, full stop.
That is not math, it is an unsubstantiated assertion. Provide a formula showing the threahold for sustainability
In my detailed comment above about the reasons some people pay no taxes it is clear there are several routes to reduce the number. What are you proposing? Taxing Social Security payments (22% of non-payers)? Reducing the standard deductions (50% of non-payers)? How low will you go?
at are you proposing? Taxing Social Security payments (22% of non-payers)?
How about reducing social security payments?
Provide a formula showing the threahold for sustainability
Um, I'd say a $14 trillion dollar debt, along with borrowing $60 billion a week, is a pretty darn good start.
This isn't complicated, after all...
That is not math, it is an unsubstantiated assertion. Provide a formula showing the threshold for sustainability
In my detailed comment above about the reasons some people pay no taxes it is clear there are several routes to reduce the number. What are you proposing? Taxing Social Security payments (22% of non-payers)? Reducing the standard deductions (50% of non-payers)? How low will you go?
Can't really, but there may be some guidelines if we look to other countries and throughout history.
What we are really talking about there is the moral risk that non-tax payers would vote themselves ever greater largess from the government at the expense of the dwindling number of tax payers. In other words, the modern equivalent of the Roman Senate voting for bread and circuses.
The reason that the 50% figure scares so many is that above that, you have less than half the country invested in keeping spending down and the economy growing. But that is a fuzzy line, since there are some (e.g. some people on Social Security) who would vote for spending and tax limitations on philosophical grounds, while some liberals would vote to increase such, also on philosophical grounds.
garage mahal said...
And a payroll tax is......?
Not an income tax.
Watching you beclown yourself over this issue and still post reveals you are not just stupid, you're hopelessly moronic.
In my detailed comment above about the reasons some people pay no taxes it is clear there are several routes to reduce the number. What are you proposing? Taxing Social Security payments (22% of non-payers)? Reducing the standard deductions (50% of non-payers)? How low will you go?
Probably the later a little, but probably more importantly, limiting tax credits such as the EIC. The problem there is that some of these credits are fairly redistributive - they give tax money to people who don't work, and the more you don't work, but still work some, the more you get.
The problem, again, is moral hazard. We are providing an incentive for otherwise able bodied people to not work as much as they could. (And, yes, I am including mothers with children at home as mostly able bodied - they often made bad life choices, but the rest of us are expected to support them as a result).
garage mahal said...
And a payroll tax is......?
Triangle Man said...
A fifth of those people "voting themselves free money" are those collecting their Social Security payments.
We have been told over and over and over again, ad nauseum, by the progressives in both parties that the surpluses of Social Security taxes over payouts are "invested" and put in this magical mystery so-called "lockbox" to be made available for future payments to beneficiaries.
This is a bald-faced lie, and was proven to be so by the Prevaricator-in-Chief himself during the debt debate. He said he couldn't promise there would enough money to pay Social Security if the ceiling wasn't raised.
But the pseudo-lockbox is filled with special Treasury notes that must by law be redeemed at the request of the trustees of the Social Security fund. There are at present several trillion of these bonds in the phony box and are part of the total debt. Any drawn down therefore reduce the amount of Treasury notes outstanding, and allows Geithner to sell new bonds up to the ceiling again to raise cash for the other government payments even if the ceiling is not raised. So the payments to beneficiaries should have never been threatened by the debt ceiling at all. Obama lied. (Shocking, I know.)
That whole controversy was used strictly to frighten the geezers and get them to hate on the Republicans.
If those surpluses had been really invested in real assets like gold, real estate, stocks and corporate bonds, there would be tens of trillions of dollars of real assets in there now. Hell, they could have even been invested in emerging foreign markets like Japan, China, India over the decades and maybe now we would own them instead of the other way around.
Instead, the Democrats all the way back in the 1960s changed to a unified budget, which meant that the surpluses, which were huge then every year, were all stolen to pay for the exploding growth of government and replaced with worthless IOUs from ourselves that would eventually have to be paid with higher taxes or higher debt.
The country has been cruelly and disastrously deceived for nearly 50 years about the "lockbox".
In my opinion, the socialist countries all over the world, including the US, are about to collapse because they are all too far over-extended with debt and it is too late to do anything meaningful about it. The economies are all hopelessly addicted now to deficit spending and will never be able to balance their budgets and pay down the debt.
Raise tax rates and slow down the economies and reduce revenues. Cut spending and that reduces incomes on which taxes are paid, even if those incomes are illusory and funded by the debt, so either way you reduce revenues.
We are totally screwed.
And it's all due to the progressive philosophy that there's a magical way to give everybody everything without bring this calamity on eventually. Thanks, Proglydites.
Get a big stock of emergency food and other supplies, some gold to use as money, and lots of ammunition. What's happening in London will spread here sooner rather than later.
And that's on top of the race riots if Obama should lose in 2012, because in order to make sure his base gets out and votes, he will escalate the racial hatred against his opponents.
Original Mike -
I hope I didn't lose your respect based upon a misunderstanding. I agree with you on that point.
"The GOP position on tax hikes should be, real spending cuts first then, and only then, can tax hikes be considered."
Exactly!!
"... And a payroll tax is......?"
Is a payroll tax, not an income tax. If you don't know the difference then either look it up or remain a dumbass.
"... That is not math, it is an unsubstantiated assertion. Provide a formula showing the threahold for sustainability...'
Sure. It's called borrowing 40% of the money needed to fund annual federal expenditures.
"The GOP position on tax hikes should be, real spending cuts first then, and only then, can tax hikes be considered."
The problem with this is the idea that we have ever cut spending. We never, ever, ever cut spending. Spending just goes up, and up, and up.
In fact, the spending increases are automatic now. The Congressional Budget Office assumes massive government growth into the future.
What every Republican nominee should insist is this: the CBO needs to quit assuming that spending increases is a baseline.
What the fuck kind of baseline is that? It's dishonest, and makes every discussion about our debt a lie.
The CBO plots $10 trillion in spending hikes over the next 10 years. The liberals, after much agonizing and gnashing of teeth, "cut" that to an increase in $8 trillion in spending hikes over the next ten years.
Then watch as the fucking lazy and/or complicit media report that we are cutting spending by $2 trillion dollars. Please burn in hell for your lies!
The truth is that spending is going up $8 trillion, which means our debt is going up $8 trillion, because nobody can afford to pay for this shit.
And then Republicans are called names for not doing our part. Our part? You haven't fucking done anything! Except put us deeper into debt.
Actually cut some fucking spending. Close down a bureaucracy or two. Put some fucking government employees out on the street. Only then should Republicans even discuss how we are going to pay for all this shit that you liberals have spent. You dishonest fucks.
Post a Comment