Is tax policy the rudder that steers the economy? No.

As we heard again last night in the Republican presidential debate, the GOP continues to treat lower taxes as a magic button to be pressed whenever more economic growth is desired, which is to say, always.

The same dogma is being trotted out today, as Republican leaders attack President Obama’s jobs bill, which pays for an immediate boost to the economy in part by reducing future tax loopholes and deductions for the wealthy.

“Not only does it reveal the political nature of this bill,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “it also reinforces the growing perception that this administration isn’t all that interested in economic policies that will actually work.”

Is there any validity to that charge, or to the Republican belief that tax policy is the single most important factor in determining economic growth and job growth? Let’s turn to history to find out.

Yesterday, I dug out the February 2002 annual report by President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, chaired at the time by R. Glenn Hubbard. It makes for interesting reading, particularly with the power of hindsight. For example, the report acknowledges a federal budget deficit in 2002, but predicts that “with spending restraint and pro-growth policies, (the budget) is projected to return to surplus beginning in 2005.” That’s not exactly how things played out.

The report also lauds the recent deregulation of the financial industry, predicting great benefits as a result. “Partly because of increased competition arising from reductions in banking regulations, banks have greatly expanded the financial services they offer customers, including important new tools for diversifying risk,” it claimed. “Together these price declines and quality improvements across a range of deregulated industries have yielded substantial economic benefits.”

As we now know, those “important new tools for diversifying risk,” better known today as derivatives trading, proved to be an economic time bomb.

The report also included a projection of job creation that would occur as a result of the Bush tax cuts adopted in 2001 (another round of cuts would be enacted in 2003). The authors of the report assured readers that the projections were conservative, and likely to be exceeded in actual practice:

“The administration believes that the economy may be able to grow faster than assumed in the budget, once the new tax policy is in place. The reductions in marginal tax rates are expected to lead to increases in labor force participation and increased entrepreneurial activity. The budget, however, uses economic assumptions that are close to the consensus of forecasters. As such, the assumptions provide a prudent, cautious basis for the budget projections.”

So let’s take a look at what the CEA projected would happen as a result of the tax cuts, compared to what actually happened.

bush jobs1

The Bush CEA predicted that tax cuts would produce so much growth that by 2010, total nonfarm employment would reach 153.9 million. The actual number was 130.3 million, almost 24 million fewer jobs than projected. In fact, job growth from the end of 2002 to the end of 2010 was so tiny as to not be noticeable.

Even before the Great Recession began, job growth was 10 million below what the CEA had predicted.

Now let’s make another comparison. In 1993, President Clinton passed a significant tax-hike measure that was opposed by every single Republican in the House and the Senate, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking, decisive vote in the Senate. Clinton argued the tax hike was needed to reassure Wall Street that the deficit would not be allowed to go out of control, butNewt Gingrich, among others, predicted disaster as a result.

“I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession,” he said. “It might take one and half or two years, but it will happen.”

Here’s what happened to employment in the nine years after the Clinton tax hike.

clinton jobs1

The lesson to be drawn is not that tax increases drive job growth, or that tax cuts harm the economy. Such statements both exaggerate the importance of tax policy and grossly oversimplify a complex, multi-faceted international economic system affected by everything from the weather in Argentina to fiscal policy in Greece. They offer the illusion of easy answers when there are none.

– Jay Bookman

474 comments Add your comment

jm

September 13th, 2011
12:05 pm

“Is tax policy the rudder that steers the economy?” Yes

Along with education policy and quality. And energy policy. Most of the rest is fiddlin’ at the margins.

Guy Incognito

September 13th, 2011
12:07 pm

Here’s what happened to employment in the nine years after the Clinton tax hike.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but werent those years the dot.com growth years? That turned out well

jm

September 13th, 2011
12:07 pm

Oh yeah. And so much for Obama cutting medicare spending to pay for his stimulus. Instead: more taxes.

I’m sure that will make his base happy. But it will turn off independents, and shows he is making a pure effort to divide Washington rather than get a real stimulus bill passed.

Obama is playing raw politics. Fine, if that’s what he wants. But Republicans will hit back hard.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:07 pm

You don’t catch fish where there are none and you get taxes from those who can afford it. Fact of life.

getalife

September 13th, 2011
12:09 pm

President Clinton’s chart is outstanding and the way to move forward.

Lets try to beat adding 23 million jobs like he did.

We can do it.

We did it before.

Yes, we can.

Peadawg

September 13th, 2011
12:09 pm

“as Republican leaders attack President Obama’s jobs bill, which pays for an immediate boost to the economy in part by reducing future tax loopholes and deductions for the wealthy.”

Yup. What happened to Obama speech about raising taxes on the wealthy AND cutting spending? I’m all for that. I’m not for higher taxes to pay for MORE spending.

Brosephus

September 13th, 2011
12:09 pm

I want one of those tax cuts that increases demand for products and services!!!!!!!

jm

September 13th, 2011
12:10 pm

“The Bush CEA predicted that tax cuts would produce so much growth that by 2010, total nonfarm employment would reach 153.9 million. The actual number was 130.3 million, almost 24 million fewer jobs than projected.”

And since every rational person agrees that you can’t run an alternative economy in parallel real time, then it is impossible to know what job growth would have looked like without the tax cuts.

Just like it is impossible to know for sure what job creation would have looked like in the absence of Obama stimulus.

IF TAXES DON’T MATTER, then why don’t we raise them to 100%, balance the budget, pay for entitlements, and call it a day? Have fun libs.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:11 pm

The GOP’s so called solutions cause the problems, to continue down their philosophical road would be plain stupid. But that’s what they do because it sounds good, never mind the results. How did they fall out of grace? DUH !!!

Union

September 13th, 2011
12:12 pm

if money is the issue.. why dont we toss more money at education.. oops.. we have already done that.. how is that working out by the way?

Jay

September 13th, 2011
12:12 pm

Yes, Guy, the Clinton years WERE the dot.com years. But the jobs created in that era were real and did not disappear.

Again, the contrast with the Bush years is telling.

USinUK

September 13th, 2011
12:13 pm

hey!! one more tax cut and we’ll all be GAZILLIONAIRES!!!

jm

September 13th, 2011
12:13 pm

“But the jobs created in that era were real and did not disappear.”

I know several former IXL employees that would disagree. Among a few million others.

Jay

September 13th, 2011
12:15 pm

So if you can’t argue data, you argue anecdote, huh jm?

Normal

September 13th, 2011
12:15 pm

I am one of the so called 53% who pays taxes and I do so WILLINGLY. I don’t get people who make the most wanting to give back the least. That’s not the key to heavens gate, I don’t think.

jewcowboy

September 13th, 2011
12:16 pm

UsinUK,

From downstairs: “only if it can be retroactive for tourists who don’t know how to behave on mass trans”

I learned a new term. Meatwall (N): a sentient being (yet unintelligible or unresponsive) blockade occupying a narrow thoroughfare, requiring anyone with intentions of passing to maneuver awkwardly close to said blockade.

Brosephus

September 13th, 2011
12:16 pm

Until people and politicians realize that we have to find a way to dramatically increase demand for goods and services to ramp up employment, we’re gonna piddle away as we are right now. A change of parties in DC will not spark demand. Partisan ideologies does not create demand either. People spending money on goods and services is the only way to increase demand. Find a way to get money to the people, and we can begin the upward spiral. Just try to avoid inflating another bubble while working on that upward spiral.

Jimmy62

September 13th, 2011
12:16 pm

Wow, the lack of memory is astounding. Clinton left office before the sh*t hit the fan and the dot.com bubble burst and we lost a lot of those jobs. Anyone remember Bush getting shellacked for the “jobless recovery” that resulted in historically low unemployment until the housing sector crashed? I can’t blame Clinton for the dot.com bubble bursting any more than I can blame Bush for the housing bubble bursting (in fact he tried to stop it, and is on record trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie).

Bad tax policy (which we have) is more likely to hurt the economy than good tax policy will help it. Mostly good tax policy is staying out of the way as much as possible. Taxes create drag on the system, and higher corporate taxes lead to higher prices on goods and services, which means income is less useful. But even that is too complicated for Democrats and Obama to understand.

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:16 pm

CHARTS!!! YAYYYY!!!! :)

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:17 pm

When US corps pay 30 % of the taxes the financial standing of the US was fine, now the biggest corps pay nothing, Huh.

USinUK

September 13th, 2011
12:17 pm

“But the jobs created in that era were real and did not disappear.”

the jobs might have been, but a majority of the companies were not – hellooooo Pets.com!

many of the techies from that era went on to find other jobs – some of which are now in mobile. however, let’s not look through rose-tinted specs at that era – there were a lot of companies that were built out of smoke and mirrors that had no business being in business, much less going public.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

September 13th, 2011
12:18 pm

Fox is launching a weeklong attack on government regulations, promising to “expose how excessive laws are drowning American businesses” – a message that coincides with a Republican push to focus on deregulation. :roll: Well I guess the good news is that finally the right wingnuts will have some regulations to cite that Fox told them are “bad” when they are asked.

Why with tax cuts and deregulation, I too will be a gazillionaire with USinkUK…

jm

September 13th, 2011
12:18 pm

Jay 12:15 – no. Creative destruction has always been a natural part of the process. I accept that.

I would say: at least the dotcom bubble wasn’t a government fueled bubble like the housing bubble was.

And obviously fewer jobs were lost in the dotcom downturn than the more recent one. But that’s not the issue.

The issue is how to create jobs. Huntsman, Romney, among others have a plan.

Lower marginal rates, reasonable tax policy, continued investments in infrastructure and reform education, capped federal spending, and state experimentation to solve our social problems.

That is the recipe for success.

USinUK

September 13th, 2011
12:18 pm

jewcowboy – oh. my. gawd. that’s the most brilliant expression EVER to describe these lummoxes.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:19 pm

Ford realized he should pay his employees enough to buy a Ford.

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:20 pm

“that we have to find a way to dramatically increase demand for goods and services”

Yes, it’s a simple concept really — but it’s fun to play smoke and mirrors instead.

Peadawg

September 13th, 2011
12:20 pm

Jay,

What happened to cut spending while raising taxes?

I don’t remember Obama mentioning increase spending and raising taxes in his speeches. And you wonder where the “tax and spend” stereotype comes from…

The fact that you, Jay, follow Obama blindly no matter what he says is so so sad.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:21 pm

Greed, not politics bursts the bubbles. The uninformed get left holding the bag.

RB from Gwinnett

September 13th, 2011
12:21 pm

“and deductions for the wealthy”

I’d like an example of a tax deduction that’s only available to wealthy people. Anybody got one?

md

September 13th, 2011
12:21 pm

“I want one of those tax cuts that increases demand for products and services!!!!!!!”

By definition, that should be any tax cut……more money in the pocket of the consumer should equate to more demand. Except that is but one variable……….and I’d say the psyche variable is a bit more dominant at the moment………..there are many out there that understand it is not prudent to spend what they may need in the near future.

Goes back to that recommended emergency fund……..not enough had that 6 months of reserve when they recently needde it……..think they might be storing those nuts this time around??

Generation$crewed

September 13th, 2011
12:21 pm

Why don’t we simply end all of the Bush tax cuts that were extended by President Obama?

Seems we all survived before they were implemented.

Why only cut a certain percentage?

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:22 pm

“Ford realized he should pay his employees enough to buy a Ford.”

Yes, I mean that man wasn’t all that worldly and bright, but he was smart enough to figure that out. It’s not rocket science.

Doggone/GA

September 13th, 2011
12:22 pm

“Ford realized he should pay his employees enough to buy a Ford”

SOME employees. He did not raise the pay of his female employees

TM

September 13th, 2011
12:22 pm

It amazing how Bush’s chart of projected v. actual is so similar to Obama’s chart of projected v. actual on unemployement with the stimulus.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

September 13th, 2011
12:23 pm

jcb… meatwall! I love it. I see it repeated daily on most elevators.

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:23 pm

“He did not raise the pay of his female employees”

And I’m certain there were no Jews working in his factories either. Thought I’d throw that in — go ahead and get the race card out of the way.

larry

September 13th, 2011
12:23 pm

I dont care if Obama’s job bill would have been paid for by gutting SS and Medicare , the Repubs still would not vote for it. Their sole goal is still to make him a one term president and they do not care how bad they hurt the country, they are going to stick to their plan.

USinUK

September 13th, 2011
12:23 pm

Doggone – “He did not raise the pay of his female employees”

well, they had husbands to take care of them

;-)

Joe Mama

September 13th, 2011
12:24 pm

jm — “I know several former IXL employees that would disagree. Among a few million others.”

IXL spent freely and never concentrated that hard on developing a strong and SUSTAINABLE cash flow. Plus, they practically shoveled money at employees in the form of pay, benefits and perks. I don’t bear IXL or its employees any ill will, but there was no way that company was going to live very long, even with the dot-com boom.

A Retirement in Time saved Mine

September 13th, 2011
12:24 pm

If only jm could provide fact to support his suspenders, what a wonderful world it would be.

Dave R.

September 13th, 2011
12:24 pm

“Such statements both exaggerate the importance of tax policy and grossly oversimplify a complex, multi-faceted international economic system affected by everything from the weather in Argentina to fiscal policy in Greece. They offer the illusion of easy answers when there are none.”

It’s taken years, but Bookman finally gets it!

Or maybe reality will set in and he’ll just go back to simplistic statements about the economy.

Union

September 13th, 2011
12:25 pm

“The stock market crash of 2000–2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002.”

just a little dot com trivia

RB from Gwinnett

September 13th, 2011
12:26 pm

“Why don’t we simply end all of the Bush tax cuts that were extended by President Obama?”

The tax rates enacted by Bush expired already. Anything in place now is OWNED by Obama. He signed it. At least have the honesty to call it what it is and stop blaming Bush.

Brosephus

September 13th, 2011
12:26 pm

Bosch

It’s much easier to play the blame game as opposed to actually tackling the problem head on. It’s like a difference in today’s defensive backs on tackling versus Ronnie Lott back in the day. The current db’s like to arm tackle and wish people to the ground. Ronnie used to punish anyone in his area who were unlucky enough to have the ball in their hands. :)

Jay

September 13th, 2011
12:26 pm

Jimmy writes:

“Clinton left office before the sh*t hit the fan and the dot.com bubble burst and we lost a lot of those jobs.”

No, we didn’t. The data beg to differ with you. The number of jobs in 1999 — 130.5 million, up more than 18 million from 1993 — remains the same even today. Those 18 million new jobs proved to be real.

Furthermore, you confirm my point. What you’re saying is that much larger economic trends swamped the supposedly powerful signal sent by tax policy.

Doggone/GA

September 13th, 2011
12:26 pm

“well, they had husbands to take care of them”

Or if they didn’t…they should have

Joe Mama

September 13th, 2011
12:26 pm

Jimmy62 — “in fact he tried to stop it, and is on record trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie”

He’s also on record stating that one of his goals is to increase the percentage of homeownership among Americans in general and Hispanics in particular.

He’s also on record as having STOPPED the state of Georgia from trying to implement more stringent mortgage origination policies, and now GA’s got more failed banks in the last three years BY FAR than any other state.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:27 pm

Face it, small business owners have never wanted to pay their share of FICA as they don’t think they would need it as told to them by their idols big bussiness and money.

AmVet - Read my lips. No new Texans!

September 13th, 2011
12:28 pm

They offer the illusion of easy answers when there are none.

The results do not lie.

Notwithstanding the laments of the Wall Street Welfare Kings, trickle down has turned into trickled on.

And these bizarre neo-cons and meatwalls (!!) are inexplicably loving their showers…

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:28 pm

Brosephus,

“It’s much easier to play the blame game as opposed to actually tackling the problem head on.”

It’s because they know they can’t actually do anything about it — their corporate daddy’s call the shots and tell them whose boss if they get out of line. :)

larry

September 13th, 2011
12:28 pm

Funny that someone mentions Ford, Arent they one of the companies that didnt pay income tax last year ?

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:30 pm

I spoke of Ford in a time before greed and influence ruled politics.

AmVet - Read my lips. No new Texans!

September 13th, 2011
12:31 pm

Ah yes, the oft-cited dot-com bubble.

I remember it well.

Thousands of start ups that NEVER made a profit. Not even for one solitary quarter.

Yet they made tons of millionaires.

American capitalism turned into a joke…

Tall

September 13th, 2011
12:31 pm

Larry:

Did you notice who will benefit from this bill? The majority of them are unionized employees who vote for Democrats. President Obama has been nothing short of terrible. He needs to go.

Union

September 13th, 2011
12:31 pm

problem is.. obama makes bush look like a rocket scientist.. i would be upset and bitter too if i had voted for him..

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:31 pm

“He’s also on record stating that one of his goals is to increase the percentage of homeownership among Americans in general and Hispanics in particular.”

Yes, would you like to see it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

pay special attention to around :44 — “this will use tax payers money to help a low income buyer to buy a home…”

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:32 pm

“How can you promote home ownership if people can’t afford a home — hehe.”

George W. Bush

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:32 pm

If the GOP bitches, you know its the right thing to do.

Brosephus

September 13th, 2011
12:33 pm

Bosch

Corporate Daddy :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tall

September 13th, 2011
12:33 pm

AmVet……continue to stew in your bilious cynicsm. Any suggestions?

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:33 pm

There’s a lot of fine print on these forms, it makes them nervous…streamline the process, make the rules simpler, making the closing much less complicated…certainly don’t want fine print to prevent others to own a home…we can change the fine print…”

George W. Bush

Doggone/GA

September 13th, 2011
12:34 pm

“I spoke of Ford in a time before greed and influence ruled politics”

I have some really bad news for you: your dream world NEVER existed

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:34 pm

“I spoke of Ford in a time before greed and influence ruled politics.”

Yes, Jefferson, I think Ford owned one suit. He was a cheap ass from everything I’ve ever read about him. But very generous to those of Caucasian Christian decent….

getalife

September 13th, 2011
12:35 pm

They shipped IT jobs to China and India after giving away cars to come to work in Silicon Valley.

Yes, Clinton was the good ole days and he wanted to do the same thing for green energy and not mortgages.

He is right. We need a green energy bubble for energy Independence the cons say they are for.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:35 pm

Influenced vs Ruled, dog. Look at tax rates then vs now.

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:35 pm

Brosephus,

As in “Whoseya’daddy?” :lol:

Mick

September 13th, 2011
12:36 pm

bosch

Yeah, how quickly they forget the “ownership society”, of course the only thing you will hear from the cons is fannie & freddie,fannie & freddie,fannie & freddie,fannie & freddie,fannie & freddie,fannie & freddie,fannie & freddie,fannie & freddie, as if that was the whole of the problem…

RB from Gwinnett

September 13th, 2011
12:36 pm

“and deductions for the wealthy”

I’d like an example of a tax deduction that’s only available to wealthy people. Anybody got one?

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:37 pm

I encourage any wingnut who has ever blamed the housing crisis solely on the Democrats to watch that video at 12:31….

Aquagirl

September 13th, 2011
12:37 pm

And these bizarre neo-cons and meatwalls (!!) are inexplicably loving their showers…

Can we add “meatwall” to the Official Dictionary of Jay’s Blog? It says so much about folks with that unique combination of arrogance, cluelessness, and total disregard for others.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:37 pm

RB what about a $15000 mortgage interest deduction?

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:38 pm

Mick,

Yes, indeed, but you forgot the CRA!!! CRA!!! CRA!!! Which is like, irrelevant to the conversation, but wingnuts never let those silly facts get in their way.

DebbieDoRight

September 13th, 2011
12:39 pm

jm: Im sure that will make his base happy. But it will turn off independents, and shows he is making a pure effort to divide Washington rather than get a real stimulus bill passed.

Two thoughts.

A) What would you know about how independents would feel?

B) Obama has bent over backwards to accomodate repugs, to his detriment, and the repugs have done nothing to accomodoate anyone but their base, your comment is truly mind boggling. Republican agenda has been nothing more than to win in the next election — they don’t give a darn about the hardships of the “little people”. They only care about the people lining their pockets. HINT: It’s not one of those “little people”.

Republican Senators and Congressman should be tried and convicted for treason.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:39 pm

Or a $30000 charity contribution.

Joe Mama

September 13th, 2011
12:39 pm

RB — “I’d like an example of a tax deduction that’s only available to wealthy people. Anybody got one?”

Uncapped itemized deductions (not worth it to itemize unless you’re wealthy anyway; 2005 legislation eliminated the cap on how many deductions you could benefit from at one time)

no limit on Homeowner interest tax credit (any size first home qualifies)

subsidized Federal Crop Insurance program (farm sizes are limited but wealthy farmers can just break up their large farm into multiple units and submit multiple claims for subsidies)

the “Supporting Organizations” loophole (can donate assets to “Supporting Organizations”, avoid tax on the assets and yet keep control of the assets themselves)

Step-Up basis of capital gains at death

Want more?

AmVet - Read my lips. No new Texans!

September 13th, 2011
12:40 pm

“…bush look like a rocket scientist.”

Actually George always reminded me more of this guy…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-tCIRJH9p0&feature=related

Shorty, yeah.

Forget the voodoo economics, you Reagan-adoring, Arnold Einsteins.

getalife

September 13th, 2011
12:41 pm

They blame the dems because they take no personal responsibility for their actions.

We should have listened to President Clinton not gramm or greenspan.

The gop have no solutions except to deregulate the banks for another mortgage bubble.

They never admit their mistakes so they can use them again.

They got nothing new to offer except go back not forward.

They are defeatists and quitters.

They will lose.

RB from Gwinnett

September 13th, 2011
12:43 pm

“RB what about a $15000 mortgage interest deduction?” $30K donation.

Everything Joe Mama listed. All available to anybody and everybody. Sorry.

If I make $30K/year and want to donate all of it, I can do that and take the deduction.

Still waiting for VALID deduction only available to wealthy people. Anybody?

getalife

September 13th, 2011
12:45 pm

RB,

Do you listen to Huntsman?

RB from Gwinnett

September 13th, 2011
12:46 pm

How about you Jay? You made the comment. What deductions for wealty people were you referring to?

Or are you just stirring the class warfare pot for your minions?

Be specific and please include the dollar value on the deduction that classifies one as “wealthy”. Thanks in advance for either an example or a retraction of your erroneous comment…

USinUK

September 13th, 2011
12:47 pm

“Still waiting for VALID deduction only available to wealthy people. Anybody?”

when ONLY the wealthy can take advantage of it because they are the ONLY people who have rental properties / stocks / etc, then it is only available to wealthy people.

getalife

September 13th, 2011
12:48 pm

“class warfare”.

Did you listen to Huntsman RB?

He answered your question last night.

USinUK

September 13th, 2011
12:48 pm

woohoo!!!

minions!!

I always wanted to be a minion.

(by the way, is that also shorthand for minced onion?)

Mick

September 13th, 2011
12:49 pm

rb

Create a little corporate entity for yourself and the sky is the limit…

mm

September 13th, 2011
12:49 pm

The only tax breaks should be for companies that hire the unemployed and companies that bring their jobs back to the US. Slap a tariff on all the cheap junk coming in from China and India and then the job market will come roaring back.

The repugs want to lower our salaries and standard of living to compete globally. Wrong. Placing tariffs on incoming goods from overseas will level the playing field just fine, thank you.

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:49 pm

But USinUK,

It’s available to poor people if they want to take advantage of it, so therefore your argument isn’t valid.

And yes, I got through typing that WHOLE sentence without laughing. But I am now.

St Simons - we're on Island time

September 13th, 2011
12:50 pm

Point made. Then what is the rudder that steers the economy?

Jefferson

September 13th, 2011
12:50 pm

RB, spoken in true GOP logic. If you can afford a Ferarri, you don’t ask how much the insurance is.

Mick

September 13th, 2011
12:50 pm

usinuk

I’d rather be a garlic minion than a perpetual water carrier….

getalife

September 13th, 2011
12:50 pm

First, the wealthy can donate unlimited bribes (5k is an insult bribe to perry) to pols.

corporations are people now.

corporate welfare has exploded under gop power.

There are many tax havens and loop holes Huntsman wants to close.

Brosephus

September 13th, 2011
12:50 pm

RB

Not necessarily a deduction, but the ability to claim income as capital gains is something that the wealthy benefit from that all people can’t take advantage of.

Most Americans depend on wages and salaries for their income, which is subject to a graduated tax so the big earners pay higher percentages. The capital gains tax turns that idea on its head, capping the rate at 15 percent for long-term investments. As a result, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains.

While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html

Aquagirl

September 13th, 2011
12:51 pm

Still waiting for VALID deduction only available to wealthy people. Anybody?

Tax-deductible yachts. Now with easy instructions! Unless of course you’re going to argue that poor people can buy all the yachts they want and get the same deductions, Gawd Bless ‘Merica.
http://www.cruisingyachts.net/articles/placing-your-new-yacht-in-charter.htm

And since corporations are now people, I’ll throw out the fancy luxury suites at sporting events. That one’s a twofer, since the stadiums are usually taxpayer financed.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

September 13th, 2011
12:51 pm

Well, I sure would like to know how people get to Bookman’s new sheets so fast. He tells us there’s fresh sheets and by the time I get there there’s already 62 posts. Sometimes there’s over 100. Do people set around and check the Opinion page every minute while a old sheet is still being used? Is there some trick I’m suppose to be using?

Anyhow, all I want is the same tax breaks the rich people have. Can I get a Oil Depletion Allowance for the motor oil I’m using? Can I turn myself into a S Corporation? How about this Accelerated Depreciation? I’m getting older every minute, you know. This old body’s wearing out. And I must be eligible for some of this Carried Interest Deduction. There’s all kind of stuff on a tax return form and I’m sure I’m missing out on alot of stuff. I guess I could get a CPA to do my taxes but by the time I pay him $150 there’s none of the savings left.

Thanks for reading. All I got today is alot of questions. Have a good lunch everybody.

USinUK

September 13th, 2011
12:51 pm

Bosch – “It’s available to poor people if they want to take advantage of it, so therefore your argument isn’t valid.”

you know what that reminds me of???

the bollock-y argument that gays want SPECIAL rights because they want to marry someone of the same gender (which, evidently, heterosexuals wouldn’t have since they don’t want to)

bollocks. bollocks. bollocks.

getalife

September 13th, 2011
12:51 pm

“Then what is the rudder that steers the economy?”

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

USinUK

September 13th, 2011
12:52 pm

“Then what is the rudder that steers the economy?”

consumer spending

70% of GDP.

Not So Casual Observer

September 13th, 2011
12:52 pm

getalife should do just that – this poser offers nothing of substance.

Liberals are the root of every problem we face as a nation and are nothing more than a group of whiners and leeches that hope the conservatives will build a large enough tax base to support them and their looney causes.

By the reckoning of Jay Bookman we do not have a problem with employment, after all we still have his 130 million jobs as shown on the charts. The fact that you Left Loons sit back and allow millions of illegal aliens to enter the company and take those jobs is lost on your narrow-minded vision.

Not So Casual Observer

September 13th, 2011
12:53 pm

Make that …”enter the country and take those jobs.

getalife

September 13th, 2011
12:54 pm

Go back to lurking not.

I am not a lib.

I am center right like our country.

Bosch

September 13th, 2011
12:54 pm

USinUK,

:lol:

Sometimes you just have to wonder how people come up with such things. It took me a minute after reading what you posted to even figure out what that means. It’s so freaking twisted!