Why a tax-rates extension is a no-brainer (Updated)
President Obama is drawing fire from his left for seemingly agreeing, if a Huffington Post interview with White House adviser David Axelrod is any indication, to a two-year extension of the current federal tax rates. (UPDATE: Axelrod is now walking back that notion. Big surprise.)
I’m not sure what else Obama’s critics expected him to do.
In the first place, most economists agree that, if there’s ever a good time to raise taxes, this isn’t it. The economy is still too weak. Even speaking from a purely political standpoint, if Obama were to refuse to extend all tax rates for high earners and the economy were to remain stagnant, he’d be very vulnerable to further attacks that he was to blame.
Second, it’s undeniable that one loud and clear message from last week’s elections was that a majority of the electorate believes Washington’s fiscal problem is spending, not revenue. That said, it is hard for Republicans to argue at this point that they won enough of a mandate to make the rates permanent. We are in the middle, not the end, of a debate over federal taxing and spending. It will last through the 2012 elections.
Which brings me to the third point: Keeping the status quo on tax rates seems to be the only option compatible with taking seriously yesterday’s initial draft proposal from the president’s debt and deficit commission. The commission’s co-chairmen proposed a tax-code overhaul that moves in the direction of lower marginal rates and fewer deductions. Their specific ideas will continue to be debated, but I think enough people agree that this is the correct general direction. So, it would be very counterproductive to move in the direction of higher marginal tax rates in the meantime.
I’m still going over the commission co-chairs’ proposal and will have more to say on it soon. But I can already say that it is a serious enough set of ideas that it should be considered very carefully. There will be changes, I’m sure. However, I think that’s all the more reason not to add political noise to the discussion by changing tax rates now.
ADDED: The AJC is interested in your ideas for cutting the deficit. Besides discussing them in the comments below, click here to contact a reporter.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
108 comments Add your comment
Question Authority
November 11th, 2010
11:02 am
If the death tax exemtion is not extended, expect a December full of plug pulling and suicides. Anyone who cares about their estate who is nearing their end may very well decide that allowing their heirs to have the money rather than the worthless federal government will take the rational approach. The statistics are clear from the year before the death tax complete exemption went into effect. Dozens of people hung on until after midnight on 12/31 just to insure that the government got none of their money.
But of course if the republican controlled house, senate, and presidency actually cared about americans, they would have made these permanent tax breaks and would have eliminated the death tax the FIRST year rather than dragging it out 10 and then giving it only another year until it came back with a vengence, but don’t ever count on the republicans to actually care about americans or their money (unless they need to steal it to fund illegal and unconstitutional wars).
Two years worth of extensions are really no better. The uncertainty will continue, and the management of investments and capital will still be distorted. People need to be able to count on consistency. This is the same thing that made the first depression last so darn long. When will government ever learn?
Larry
November 11th, 2010
11:18 am
If your theory is that the economy is to weak for a tax increase then you must accept that for the top 2% for whom the economy is working very nicely thankyou as they increase their grab of an outsized share of the ntations income and wealth through political corruption, they should be taxed. Better yet, lets take their campaign contributions which enables they to continue profitting through a recession with measures just like this.
http://moneyouttapolitics.org/
jconservative
November 11th, 2010
11:21 am
I would agree that the Bush cuts need to be extended for a couple of years. I do have a problem with there being no offsetting reduction in spending. As a result more borrowing or more printing.
I also have been going over the Simpson/Bowles proposals. And I really look forward to the full committee report or reports. Will there be both a majority and a minority report?
This sentence from the AP story is telling:
“The government reported separately Wednesday that the deficit for last month alone was $140.4 billion — and that was 20 percent lower than a year earlier. The red ink for all of the past fiscal year was $1.29 trillion, second highest on record, and this year is headed for the third straight total above $1 trillion.”
We cannot continue down this road.
Nothing can be taken off the table. Nothing!
Kyle Wingfield
November 11th, 2010
11:21 am
Actually, Larry, I don’t have to accept that — because I don’t buy into class-warfare politics.
Kyle Wingfield
November 11th, 2010
11:24 am
jconservative: I agree, there must also be spending cuts. I think the voters’ message on that was loud and clear. It will be interesting to see what kind of overlap there is among the Simpson/Bowles proposals and other spending-cut plans out there (e.g., the one from Heritage that I mentioned a week or two ago).
CJ
November 11th, 2010
11:33 am
Now is not a good time to raise taxes? Stop the presses! I could have sworn that the TeaGOP voters hated deficits. I thought they hated Keynesian economics. But today Kyle is advocating on behalf of deficits (Kyle and his Very Serious colleagues at the WSJ can’t find $700 billion in cuts to make up for the lost revenue) and Keynesian economics? I’m starting to question whether his arguments and assertions are genuine.
I also recall Kyle insisting that not all tax cuts are alike (it follows that not all tax increases are not alike). But now is not a good time to raise any taxes? Even the taxes of people who are unlikely to put most or any of the tax benefits back into the economy (Google “marginal propensity to consume”).
No, I’m sorry, but Kyle is misinforming his readers again when he writes that most economists agree that this isn’t a good time to raise taxes. It’s true that this isn’t a good time to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, but most economists agree that raising the top two rates will have little to no effect on private sector spending or hiring.
Kyle is also misinterpreting the election when he asserts that a majority of the electorate believes Washington’s fiscal problem is spending, not revenue. In fact, Obama was easily elected after promising that he would raise taxes on income over $250,000, and polls still show that the majority of Americans still support that position.
What do Obama’s critics expect him to do? We expect him to refuse to negotiate with hostage takers. If the TeaGOP Party insists on holding the middle class cuts hostage in order to maintain cuts for the wealthy, then they can do it. But if and when they’re responsible for all Bush cuts expiring, then Obama can introduce his own middle class tax cuts next year that, no doubt, will be necessary and popular.
Kyle Wingfield
November 11th, 2010
11:39 am
CJ: Thanks for summarizing the argument that lost last week.
Grimlock
November 11th, 2010
11:42 am
Me, Grimlock, no like liberals.
Liberals want to take all of Grimlock’s hard-earned money which he worked to receive all on his own by overtaxing his wages.
Then, liberals, want to give tired Grimlock’s money to lazy people in form of welfare or pointless of jobs for stupid people with no education, serviceable skills or work ethic like airport TSA agents.
Me, Grimlock, want tax money to stop going to pay perverts from touching little girls and women in their naughty places.
Me, Grimlock, want more money left in worker’s pockets to spend as they see fit in providing for themselves and their families and thereby stimulating.
Ugly Pelosi and Obama Jive Talker take Grimlock’s money and urinate it away on socialist programs and handouts to our society’s incompetent and UNDERacheiving. Obama Jive Talker want to put more American jobs in India instead of America. If you not actual American citizen like Obama Jive Talker, you probably not care about American jobs, either.
Ugly Pelosi and Obama Jive Talker should be in unemployment lines, not honest, hardworking, law-abiding American citizens with valid American birth certificates.
Grimlock
November 11th, 2010
11:48 am
Me, Grimlock, do much better job in investing in & stimulating American economy with his more of his own money not taken from him in taxes than Ugly Pelosi or Obama Jive Talker.
Ugly Pelosi and Obama Jive Talker FEAR tax cuts, as most liberals do.
Tax cuts lower liberals’ ability to stay in power by buying votes from lazy and not-smart people by promising them free stuff so they won’t have to do honest work for themselves.
CJ
November 11th, 2010
11:55 am
Kyle: You’re one who gloats. Good to know.
Clovis
November 11th, 2010
11:57 am
I, Clovis, do not wish to witness further amounts of my descreationary income forcibly removed from my person to be allotted for supplemental tele-prompters for “The Great Community Organizer.”
Gordon
November 11th, 2010
12:00 pm
I am extremely surprised by what I have heard out of the debt commission so far. I was sure it would be nothing but tax increases and excuses to expand government but I happily admit I was wrong.
Too bad it will never happen….
Gordon
November 11th, 2010
12:04 pm
Kyle is correct. The Bush tax cuts are the topic of the week, but deficit reduction is the topic of this generation. Revenue and expense solutions must be considered together. It is time to stop treating them as separate things.
Kyle Wingfield
November 11th, 2010
12:09 pm
CJ: No, gloating sounds more like “I won.” No prizes for guessing who uttered that gloat-tastic phrase.
Kyle Wingfield
November 11th, 2010
12:11 pm
Note the difference between the finality of “I won” and what I originally wrote:
“We are in the middle, not the end, of a debate over federal taxing and spending.”
SPSU
November 11th, 2010
12:22 pm
Hey liberals your man, your party, your policies were handily defetaed. Like your hero Obozo stated – go to the back of the bus!
Road Scholar
November 11th, 2010
12:29 pm
Kyle, here’s your cuts if the top earners get their tax cut renewed: end all their deductions!all tax shelters! Still need to cut spending: Cut the salaries and benefits of conservatives in the federal government who stated its a spending issue. Let them stand up for their principles. Thus we pay for the tax break and we cut spending! Now I bet the repubs will howl!
Linda
November 11th, 2010
12:36 pm
According to CNSNEWS.com, Pelosi promised “no new deficit spending.” When she was inaugurated on 1/4/07, the natl. debt was $8.67 T. As of 10/22/10, it was $13.67 T, an increase of $5 T!!!!!!! The 60th speaker of the House has added more to the natl. debt than the 1st 57 House speakers combined (from 1789 thru 1995). Gingrich only increased it $812.4 B, but Hastert increased it $3.1 T.
Most bills originate in the House.
We have a spending problem & an unemployment problem, not a revenue problem.
The $600 T the feds. are printing out of thin air & spending will not be added to the natl. debt but rather to the cost of consumer goods in the form of inflation.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe
jt
November 11th, 2010
12:36 pm
“Why a tax-rates extension is a no-brainer ”
Actually, a tax-rate EXTENSION is a LOBOTOMIZED brainer.
Make the tax-rate permanent, and then, start the process of weening the citizens of Georgia off of the corrupt Federal teat.
The citizens are doing this whether or not the media or politicians acknowledge this or not.
We’ll do it the hard way or the easy way.
Independent J
November 11th, 2010
12:46 pm
CJ-
“but most economists agree that raising the top two rates will have little to no effect on private sector spending or hiring”
so your reasoning to raise taxes on the top 2% is only out of spite, because you’re upset that people did better than you in their career…the evil profit sharing companies that employ the middle class and lower class have to pay more….you entitlement “a” hole ..
i own a small business that makes about 850k a year , 10 employees and my margins are around 20%….which is great in comparison…do you know why and how i have made my money..i own a recruiting firm putting people into the work force…and i watch and save my expenditures so i can reinvest in my company….to hire and expand…. you want to tax me more when i am putting people to work? wow!! you sound like a lazy liberal looking for handouts…whoa is you!!! CJ send me your resume and let me get you in a better career…i need your tax dollars….
Recent Grad
November 11th, 2010
12:48 pm
I say do away with taxes for rich people anyway. While we’re at it, let’s do away with the minimum wage and all labor laws. Let’s just do away with the middle class. It’s time to get back to the 19th century. Whether you believe in class warfare or not, it’s here. It’s war on the middle class whether you like it or not. And a large part of the working and middle class will be complicent in their own demise. Somebody has to pay off the loan to China. I guess it has to be the poor and middle class.
Linda
November 11th, 2010
12:54 pm
Independent J, If you were hiring your 11th employee, would you hire a liberal/progressive/socialist?
Linda
November 11th, 2010
1:01 pm
Recent Grad, Every time the Dems. raise the minimum wage during a time of high unemployment, the unemployment rate increases on the minimum wage earners. Raising taxes on employers during a time of high unemployment also increases the unemployment rate. Remember Econ 101?
JF McNamara
November 11th, 2010
1:01 pm
I agree that tax rates are unlikely to change because of the political ramifications. That doesn’t, however, mean that its not the right thing to do.
While Washington may have a spending problem, that’s not what I got out of last week’s elections. I got out of it that Obama isn’t a great political tactician, because the Republicans simply won the media managing to turn the failed economy they spawned on him. Also, the Southerners got revenge by electing all Republicans. It was just a referendum on Republican anger.
Simply stated, If the economy wasn’t “bad”, no one would care about spending. In order to say people care about spending, you would need to be able to make that case in both good and bad economies. My point, Bush spent wildly in a good economy and no one cared. If Obama had the same economy, he could spend wildly too.
I think we’ll both agree that a lot of voters don’t actually have a handle on any of the issues. Only a small percentage of those voters who do have a handle on them also have a grasp on economics. One thing is clear. No one is going to vote for higher taxes or less service…EVER. If you say that’s what you are going to do, then you are going to lose. Its the reason why governance is hard when you need to make changes that we need to be made.
We need to raise taxes because we won’t (and can’t) cut nearly enough. Maybe I haven’t looked in the right places, but there is no workable plan that actually cuts enough to get us to a balanced budget. There never will be, and politicians just keep kicking the can down the road so they can get re-elected. Until we have a Greek style disaster, nothing will ever change and those who try to stop the crisis beforehand will get voted out. I see how this works now “Lie about fiscal responsability to elected but never change anything.” and I’m beginning to care less. At least I’m running up the credit card. Someone else will get to pay it later.
Independent J
November 11th, 2010
1:02 pm
Linda,
do you think they understand capitalism? because if they cant understand value and role of profits, and they have the same business acumen as Obama..why would i hire them….
its business, not personal…
would you hire them?
JDW
November 11th, 2010
1:02 pm
Hello Kyle, thought I would give you a shot at explaining reality.
Jay Bookman pointed out this morning that “what a lot of people miss in this taking money that could be invested in jobs” argument is that money that we have to borrow to cover the higher deficit is ALSO money removed from the private economy that might have funded growth.”
I believe, that in a nutshell is why the Clinton years were high growth and the Reagan-Bush-Bush-Obama(To-Date) years are not. When Clinton raised taxes it had zero effect on the creation of jobs or spending but a gigantic impact on investment…those billions of new dollars required to finance debt spending had to find a different investment home.
If you want to see economic growth raise taxes to the level needed to support the appropriate funding level…in the long run it encourages investment and keeps interest rates naturally low.
If you want to turbo charge growth, institute a 5% national sales tax with the express purpose of reducing our national debt…again freeing investment dollars that need a new home while putting downward pressure on interest rates.
Fully anticipating the argument but, but, but tax cuts create growth…the nums don’t lie.
GDP Growth Rates
Historical…1/1/47 to 1/31/81 GDP growth averaged 3.73%…total debt incurred in the period $988 Billion over 34 years.
Clinton…2/1/93 to 1/31/01 GDP growth averaged 3.81% or about the historical average. Total debt incurred 1.383 Billion over 8 years.
Reagan-Bush…2/1/81 to 1/31/93 GDP growth averaged 3.08% or about 17.5% below the historical average. Total debt incurred $3.414 Trillion over 12 years.
Bush-Obama…2/1/01 to now GDP growth averaged 1.65% or more than 55% below the historical average. Total debt to date $6.102 Trillion over 9 years.
Tax cuts that create deficits are the problem not the solution and extending the current crop of government giveaways just continues to compound our problem.
Recent Grad
November 11th, 2010
1:17 pm
Yeah, what McNamara and JDW said.
DannyX
November 11th, 2010
1:19 pm
Georgia Republicans just gobbled up 4.6 billion in stimulus dollars. Gov Perdue campaigned for more federal dollars on behalf of Republican Governors. The Bush tax cuts created a huge gash in the deficit.
The incoming Republican leadership are retreads from the disastrous “Yes Mr President” Bush years. The Republican “Bridge To Nowhere” has become a “Bridge to the Past.”
To fund the Bridge to the Past, “earmarks” will now be called “appropriations.”
Thank you Kyle for doing your “Bridge to the Past” introduction. We’re now back to waiting for those Bush tax cuts to solve everything.
Imma Lib
November 11th, 2010
1:23 pm
Whhhhaaaatttt????? Let people keep more of THEIR money???? Not let some all-knowing bureaucrat in Washington decide what to do with other people’s money!?!?!?!?!
OOOOH THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!
Imma Lib
November 11th, 2010
1:30 pm
“…We’re now back to waiting for those Bush tax cuts to solve everything.”
No, we’re waiting for Spending Cuts to help solve everything.
Jefferson
November 11th, 2010
1:31 pm
Kyle, you will never see the gov’t get to where you say you want it with your attitude, you and your kids can have the debt as you don’t want to solve the problem, just stick your head in the greedy sand.
The Great and Powerful Community Organizer
November 11th, 2010
1:33 pm
“John….the Election’s over….I WON!”
Linda
November 11th, 2010
1:41 pm
Independent @ 1:02, Do entrepreneuers/employers tend to vent potential employees as to their understanding & opinion of business? Do they simply ask if the candidate thinks the employer is evil for being a capitalist? Is it more difficult for a socialist/progressive/liberal to obtain a job in the private sector from a self-employed capitalist?
CJ
November 11th, 2010
1:46 pm
I wrote, “…most economists agree that raising the top two rates will have little to no effect on private sector spending or hiring…”
Independent J wrote, “…so your reasoning to raise taxes on the top 2% is only out of spite, because you’re upset that people did better than you in their career…”
I wonder if Independent J knows what a non sequitur is.
My reasoning to raise taxes on the top two percent is to help balance the budget. If Independent J knows how to do that without raising those rates, then I’d love to hear it. Because Kyle, the WSJ, Heritage, Cato, GOP, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, and others from the right can’t figure out how to do it.
ExRepublican
November 11th, 2010
1:49 pm
Average Americans want and need a president who truly fights for them, not a weak sellout too quick to lay down and compromise too much, too often.
President Obama will be gone in 2013 unless he bloodies his knuckles more by fighting harder for America’s middle-class and against reckless GOP excesses.
Talk is cheap. More tough battles from Obama to win some rounds for the forgotten middle class would be his best weapon for winning a second term.
DannyX
November 11th, 2010
1:52 pm
‘No, we’re waiting for Spending Cuts to help solve everything.”
Lol. Here’s an idea, keep tuned in to Fox News. The Pelosi “Jetgate” story took up about 1000 hours of Fox News airtime. Come January Fox News will be spending more time on the issue. I’ll bet they will fill another 1000 hours on how Boehner has given up his jet privilege all in the name of the deficit. A true Deficit Hawk. LOL, yea, that’s going to happen. Better set those DVR’s!
Hey, are you “waiting for Spending Cuts Republicans” waiting to repeal socialist Medicare Part D?
Imma Lib
November 11th, 2010
1:58 pm
hahahaha…I knew you couldn’t do it—go ONE day without Medicare Part D! Dayum, Danny Boy, get some new material…LOL. YES, repeal Medicare Part D.
And you, and the 15 to 16 others, keep tuned into MSNBC. Guess that “tinglin’ feeling” is not so “tinglin” anymore, huh? LOL!
Linda
November 11th, 2010
1:59 pm
If we raise taxes on the top 2% of earners, which include at least 700 small businesses, & the DC bunch spends it rather than paying down the natl. debt & balancing the budget, while unemployment remains the same or increases, what’s the liberals/socialists Plan II?
The coins/change I have left read “In God We Trust,” not the govt.
My common sense says, “You go first.” Stop the spending/looting/printing before you ask me for more money.
Independent J
November 11th, 2010
2:03 pm
Linda,
Yes..understanding a simple business model, sales strategy and why we’re in business is at the top of my list.
No.. dumb question in an interview- and were not evil,
im not sure if its more difficult… i dont ask political questions and views, but it can become very obvious,
I and millions of other small business owners cant afford to hire candidates, no matter what their political view is, if they dont understand the fundamentals values of business and services.
A socialist/progressive/liberal wont be knocking on my door anyway….its not their calling,but i wish them well…just dont expect me to pay for them….
does that answer your question…or is there a setup and a blasting im a about to receive
mrs. w
November 11th, 2010
2:05 pm
You can start by stopping all of the holidays that govt. employees get that the rest of us don’t. It seems like every other Monday is some dead presidents birthday. Do you guys get Columbus Day off? Veterans Day? MLK day? All with pay. That should save them a bundle right there.
And don’t get me started on the welfare system and people who receive more of a tax refund than what they actually paid in. We all live here, we all need to pay.
Linda
November 11th, 2010
2:09 pm
Most bills originate in the House, which has been controlled by Pelosi & the Dems for 4 yrs. The Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Everyone has know since ‘01 & ‘03 that the Bush tax cuts would expire in ‘10. The Dems. did not even attempt to extend ANY of the tax cuts, not even for the middle class by introducing a bill that they could have passed.
There’s not a single person in the US that knows what their tax bracket will be in a month & a half, including all the small businesses whose owners fall into either the middle or higher income tax brackets. And we wonder why unemployment is permanent at almost 10%???????
Consumer confidence is now consumer panic.
steve tanner
November 11th, 2010
2:14 pm
Wow, the tiny sliver of wealthy people in this country have really duped the hard-working citizens of this country to work against their own best interests once again. How recklessly selfish these people are to cut crucial safety nets for the most vulnerable so that they can stash a little more vacation or yacht money aside. It’s nothing more than disgusting greed — trickle down economics has never been proven, and the wealthy know it. They’re just greedy, sociopathic pigs with absolutely no regard for the well-being of society as a whole. Don’t believe their self-serving lies, people!
CJ
November 11th, 2010
2:19 pm
Linda, “The Dems. did not even attempt to extend ANY of the tax cuts, not even for the middle class by introducing a bill that they could have passed.”
As usual, Linda wallows in her ignorance.
The Democratic House passed a bill that would make the middle class tax cuts permanent (that is, all except the top two rates). Obama has said that when the Senate passes the bill, then he will sign it. However, the Republicans in the Senate are continuing to block an up-or-down vote on this legislation. The TeaGOP position is either tax cuts for all or tax cuts for none.
Independent J
November 11th, 2010
2:19 pm
CJ- read “the fair tax “book it has all your answers, your welcome!!
and by raising taxes on the top 2%…do you think that it wont be passed down to everybody else…those 250K (small business owners) earners will merely raise goods and services to the consumer….or quit expanding their operations….
i wonder if CJ has ever run a payroll? or a small business or shopped for insurance for employees….nah…he’s a taker
could cut spending…drastically!!!! could happen….we balance the budget going after the top 2%? then what…you think the spending will then cease..noooo, govt figured out how to balance the budget….screw the business owners!!!!how much is enough CJ..
serious read with an open mind The Fair Tax…..
i can squabble all day..but its not going to make me a profit so i can pay more taxes for your satisfaction…no what i mean?
Independent J
November 11th, 2010
2:22 pm
steve…YOUR FIRED!!
go get a job from the middle class or lower class….lol …greedy? huh..go invent something, sorry sitting your ass on the couch has been taken
CJ
November 11th, 2010
2:27 pm
I read the Fair Tax book IJ…and it’s sequel. Let me know if you have any questions.
Recent Grad
November 11th, 2010
2:28 pm
Kudos to steve tanner!
Linda
November 11th, 2010
2:30 pm
Independent J @ 2:03, You will not be getting a blasting from me. I’m just taking advantage of an opportunity to ask questions of another employer & recruiter. I’ve noticed on the blogs that most of those who are unemployed are those who disagree with capitalism. I think it’s more than a coincidence. I have always made certain that those I hire believe in the free enterprise system. If a prospective employee is a liberal, he can’t be conservative with my expenses.
Jimney Cricket
November 11th, 2010
2:30 pm
Bottom line..we’ve had ten years of the lowest tax rates on the wealthy in history coupled with the least amount of over-sight of the financial industry in our history and the result has not been job creation..but the biggest financial catastophe since the depression, widest gap between the rich and poor since before the Depression, and a sinking middle-class. The poor are getting poorer and the rich a whole lot richer. Obama wants to tax the wealthiest 2% back to the Clinton era rates. I’ll remind you that during the “socialist regime” of Eisenhour the tax rate on the wealthy after the first $200,000 was 91-94%!! The Middle-Class was booming, jobs were being created, and the rich were still rich! During that time the average “CEO” pay was 10-15 times the average salary of their workers..today it’s over 150 times that. But I know it’s all the Union’s fault, but during the “communist experiment” of the 1950″s around 40% of American workers were union members today it’s around 12%. It’s not a coincidence that as we lower tax rates on the wealthy, dimish the collective power of labor, and lower regulation of industry..that real wages for workers have dimished greatly and the middle class is dissappearing. And I mean a real middle-class with a comfortable standard of living that could actually choose to exist on one parent’s salary and not go broke(which is the biggest negative impact on our culture). If tax cuts for the rich(trickle-down) worked then the last ten years would have resulted in a huge period of job creation, but in fact the exact opposite has occurred. In fact, the only thing being created is insane and immoral amounts of wealth for the super-rich. We should promote capitolist innovation and wealth creation, but seriously stifle the immoral and unjust greed that continues to be a cancer on our culture and push us toward “class warfare”.
j
November 11th, 2010
2:33 pm
“Second, it’s undeniable that one loud and clear message from last week’s elections was that a majority of the electorate believes Washington’s fiscal problem is spending, not revenue”
Kyle, the voters are effing clueless, that’s why they waste their time voting. If they knew what was really going on they wouldn’t bother voting.
They vote every year expecting different results and haven’t realized that the joke is on them and nothing will change. Isn’t that the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Stop voting and live your life.
Kyle what’s taking you so long to get the message of the commission dude? The message should be loud and clear, the country is broke. get it?
no money. The party is over. Time to pay the piper or learn Chinese quickly.
The pie shrinks every year and the number of people who rely on the pie goes up.
Imma Lib
November 11th, 2010
2:33 pm
Steve
Nothing like a little wealth “envy”, is there? Punish the achievers and coddle the moochers.
Jimney Cricket
November 11th, 2010
2:33 pm
Independant J
Shouldn’t you be at work!
DannyX
November 11th, 2010
2:33 pm
“Consumer confidence is now consumer panic.”
Oh my God panic everyone! Do yourselves a favor, check out the commercials on Fox during the Glenn Beck Show. Learn how you too can purchase a two week supply of panic food. Our economy is on the verge of collapse.
Someone quick, go tell the Stock Market. They need to know of this panic. There was an 11% increase in the Dow during September and October. Make sure you tell them Linda sent you.
Gordon
November 11th, 2010
2:38 pm
Where do you think this ends, DannyX? Can we do this forever? How do we stop? Do you see any indication at all from either party this it will?
Answer these questions and I won’t panic.
Linda
November 11th, 2010
2:40 pm
CJ @ 2:19, One of us is incorrect, but that does not mean that either one of us is wallowing in ignorance. Can’t you disagree with me without calling me names? If the House passed a bill permanently extending the Bush tax cuts on everyone except the top 2%, please cite a reference. I’m not perfect & could have missed it, but that gives you no right to insult me.
j
November 11th, 2010
2:41 pm
any small business person making $250k taxable income will gladly pay any increase.
why? because most small business owners struggle to make $75K per year.
go to your next local chamber of commerce meeting and take a poll, out of 100 business owners maybe 5 make more than 250k the rest are barely getting by.
Linda
November 11th, 2010
2:53 pm
The Bush tax cuts will not be extended on couples making over $250,000 per year except for Obama’s exceptions: the NBA (his favorite sport), union bosses, Hollywood, trial lawyers, CEOs of companies he bailed out, green CEOs, the liberal media (all except FOX), govt. employees & all Dem. campaign contributors. Who did I leave out?
Rafe Hollister
November 11th, 2010
3:00 pm
Kyle: You have let the liberals off the hook on their use of the term “Bush Tax cuts for the WEALTHY”. Notice that since Obama talks daily about extending these tax cuts for the middle class and poor, no one mentions the “Tax cuts for the wealthy” phrase. Now, it is just the Bush Tax cuts. At the time they were passed the MSM tried to pass them off as only benefitting the Wealthiest of the Wealthy. Later we learn that 85% of the total outlay is in tax cuts for the Middle Class and poor.
As far as I’m concerned, if Obumbler signs off on a bill extending these tax cuts, from that point on I will refer to them as “Obama’s tax cuts for the wealthy.”
I agree with what I heard from the Deficiet Commission yesterday. Just what we need a good plan to get started. The Dems were already disparaging the rise of the retirement age, but like when the French complained, what is the big deal between 67 and 69. I am sure todays 69 year old is as fit and able as were the 65 year olds at the time Soc Sec was started.
Linda
November 11th, 2010
3:25 pm
CJ @ 2:19, I stand by my comment @ 2:09. The Dems. never introduced, let alone passed, any bill to extend the tax cuts on the middle class. You were incorrect. This does not mean that you are “wallowing in ignorance,” as you accused me of. As a matter of fact, I think you are one sharp cookie. We all make mistakes. I can’t fault you for assuming that the Dems. did what they could have done when they could have done it.
JoeFann
November 11th, 2010
3:28 pm
If the President thought he had the votes, he could certainly direct both Pelosi and Reid to quickly put together a package of temporary tax cuts for the middle and lower income earners to replace the expiring cuts before the lame duck session ends. Of course, then he would be advocating tax cuts, clearly NOT a party position. He knows it’s the right thing to do, there’s just no politically justifiable way to do it. Rock, meet hard place. Herein lies the definitive difference between a statesman and a politician.
ojp4president
November 11th, 2010
3:29 pm
Thank you Jimney…
ojp4president
November 11th, 2010
3:29 pm
“Actually, Larry, I don’t have to accept that — because I don’t buy into class-warfare politics.”
“Thanks for summarizing the argument that lost last week.”
Actually, the argument didn’t lose–it is supported by a significant majority in every poll that has addressed it. And your post–a claim that tax cuts need to be extended for the wealthy–is class-warfare politics. If you didn’t buy into the premise, as you suggest, then you would have avoided the topic altogether.
ojp4president
November 11th, 2010
3:33 pm
Few economists suggest that extending the tax cuts benefits the economy other than to create certainty. You know what else would create certainty–an outright declaration that the tax cuts for the top 2% will not be extended. There is no evidence that a 3% change in wage taxes on the wealthy will have any impact on the economy, but there is significant evidence that it will impact the deficit.
ojp4president
November 11th, 2010
3:34 pm
Do we really need to continue the farce of trickle down economics in relation to wage taxes when the 15% capital gains tax on the “investing class” (in contrast to the 30%+ income tax for the “working class”) is already such a strong reminder that wealth is more important in this country than hard work?
Furthermore, why is there no discussion on the impact that a 15% capital gains tax has had on the inflation of the financial industry–an industry that is only transactional and has no value-added component whatsoever–and the creation of bubble economics?
The reality is that our tax system is already substantially slanted to favor the wealthy, and a 3% increase on their income isn’t even enough to cover the difference in taxes that the working class pay in FICA. Not to mention the fact that people making under $250K are also MUCH more likely to spend it and are therefore taxed again through sales tax, whereas people making over $250K are not facing additional taxes on income that they do not spend.
CJ
November 11th, 2010
3:39 pm
Linda,
Actually, I’m the one wallowing in my ignorance this time. You’re right. I’m wrong. The House didn’t pass the legislation.
My sincere apologies.
I’ll make you a deal. I won’t call you names if you promise not to accuse me of trying to destroy America, the Constitution, and our history (by definition, it appears that I’m a progressive, although I prefer liberal). Again, I find it hard to be civil to those who refuse to be civil as well.
Independent J
November 11th, 2010
3:40 pm
jimney..well played-but i got people for that..lol
linda- agreed- the ones i have seen complain the most about jobs….voted for him
CJ- really? well then you had the answer all along…you do lose your creditability with the name calling…cmon your smarter than teh ave lib…arent you?
Wheat from the Chaff
November 11th, 2010
3:44 pm
Here’s a brilliant idea:
All citizens, regardless of income, who state that they believe that the federal government does not tax enough, will pay income tax rates of 50% — and call themselves liberal.
All citizens, regardless of income, who state that they believe that the federal government taxes too much, will pay income tax rates of 10% — and call themselves conservative.
Then we’ll seperate the wheat from the chaff!
ojp4president
November 11th, 2010
3:46 pm
Good idea buckwheat! And then we’ll geographically separate the two groups and see which society prospers.
Wheat from the Chaff
November 11th, 2010
3:55 pm
But oj, that would ruin the fun.
DannyX
November 11th, 2010
4:04 pm
Hey Wheat! You left off the ending!
All citizens, regardless of income, who state that they believe that the federal government taxes too much, will pay income tax rates of 10% — and call themselves conservative. These new conservatives will NOT receive Medicare Part D benefits. The state of Georgia and other Republican/Conservative run states pledge to return all stimulus money and will force our Republican Governor’s to stop begging for more. Us conservatives realize that the mortgage exemption is not in the Constitution and will no longer claim it. We will also call for a ban on ANY college football at state funded schools. Our free market non commie philosophy says lets leave college sports to the free market pro league. College football is socialism.
(ATTENTION: Georgia conservatives. Your federal stimulus tab amounts to 4.6 billion. Shame on you for accepting and campaigning for that money. Pay up.)
Roy-Is-A-Crook
November 11th, 2010
4:07 pm
Why should a guy making 600 million bucks in one year pay only a 15% tax rate, when a guy making 100K a year pays a 30+ percent tax rate? Steve Swartzman of Blackstone group is paying only 15%, while I bet Kyle is paying in the 30% range on 100K.
Wheat from the Chaff
November 11th, 2010
4:17 pm
Excellent ending Danny… but you left out the ending for the liberal part of the equation. If all citizens, regardless of income, who state that they believe that the federal government does not tax enough, must pay income tax rates of 50% — and call themselves liberal — liberals will cease to exist!
songbird
November 11th, 2010
4:25 pm
Roy – you nailed it. The problem for most people people on this blog and in this country, they don’t know anyone who makes that kind of money, so it just doesn’t register with them, so they keep voting against their own best interests.
Linda
November 11th, 2010
4:32 pm
CJ @ 3:39, Being mistaken does not mean wallowing in ignorance. Apology accepted.
The House didn’t introduce or pass the legislation because they did not have the votes. The majority of the Dems. in the House would not vote to raise taxes on the top 2%. Now the Pres. seems to be in favor of extending the tax cuts to all. I hope this discussion will be over soon.
You have no right to call me names because of my opinion of progressives, who I see are out to destroy our Constitution, our faith & our history & therefore, our country. Progressivism has nothing to do with making progress. What I do not understand is what is in this for an individual. It is made up of revolutionaries from the 60’s & 70’s dressed up in suits & consider themselves the elite, above & smarter than the masses. Not all liberals are progressives but all progressives are liberals. Most liberals don’t even know the agenda of the progressives. Progressivism just sounds better than what it really is: redistribution of wealth, globalism, big govt. & class & race warfare.
That is about as civil & honest as I can be. Have a great evening.
Imma Lib
November 11th, 2010
4:43 pm
DannyX
Medicare Part D ..repeat…..repeat……..repeat…….repeat…..
Steve
November 11th, 2010
4:44 pm
Why is noone talking about giving tax cuts to people making under 50k a year? Why do the rich get the tax breaks but the normal people of society do not? It’s so pathetic.
Steve
November 11th, 2010
4:48 pm
Who are these “achievers and what have they “achieved”?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
November 11th, 2010
4:55 pm
Amend the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced federal budget, duh.
Imma Lib
November 11th, 2010
4:58 pm
Could it be because a lot of people making less than 50K do not pay any taxes?
Dave
November 11th, 2010
5:06 pm
I more or less agree w/this (looks like the “commission” gives room for even bigger gov’t and higher taxes):
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/What-Am-I-Missing
“But here’s what I don’t get about the initial reactions. Putting aside all the minutiae and detail, the crux of the proposal comes down to two points: capping federal government expenditures at 22% — and eventually 21% — of GDP, and capping revenues at 21% of GDP. And each of these represents a BIG problem. The first is on the spending side. Except for the anomalous stimulus/bailout/recession years of 2009-2011, federal government expenditures haven’t reached 21% of GDP since the collapse of the Soviet Union – and since World War II only exceeded 21% of GDP during the Reagan-Bush military buildup of the 1980s and early 90s. For virtually all of the Clinton and G.W. Bush years – and during all the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon years – federal expenditures ranged between 18 and 20% of GDP. So while the 21% figure represents something of a cut versus the out-year projections of the President’s most recent budget, it leaves plenty of headroom to establish and make permanent even more government than we had in the immediate pre-Obama years.
The more important problem is on the revenue side. According to Office of Management and Budget figures, federal revenues have NEVER reached 21% of GDP. In fact, only in Bill Clinton’s final year in office – and during WW II – did revenues even exceed 20% of GDP. During the whole time from 1960 through 2008, federal tax revenues almost always fell between 17 and 19% of GDP, only occasionally rising above 19% (chiefly in Clinton’s second term) or below 17% (G. W. Bush’s first term). Even President Obama’s FY 11 Budget has federal revenues rising only to around 19% of GDP by 2015. So the 21% “cap” represents two full percentage points of GDP above what we have experienced even during historically “high” tax environments.
By way of comparison, the last time we had a “balanced” federal budget – FY 2001 – revenues were 19% of GDP and expenditures 18%. The Commission’s draft, in effect, proposes solving our deficit problem by allowing the federal government to grow 15-20% larger than it was under Bill Clinton, then raising taxes as much as necessary to pay for it. It institutionalizes President Obama’s expansion of the role of government – maybe not quite as much as he and Nancy Pelosi would like – and lays the burden squarely on the shoulders of American taxpayers.”
Kyle Wingfield
November 11th, 2010
5:15 pm
Dave: You, and the article you linked, are right about the targets as a percentage of GDP. I think the value in the proposal is in how we think about taxation — going flatter, simpler, broader, lower at the margins. That doesn’t mean they picked the right target.
Steve: Tax rates were lowered for everyone under Bush. What do you think Democrats mean when they talk about preserving middle-class tax cuts?
John Daly
November 11th, 2010
5:37 pm
“Why a tax-rates extension is a no-brainer” I guess that is why Bookman is against it.
Just Wondering
November 11th, 2010
5:46 pm
Need a “best guess” from someone who actually knows the answer, not the uneducated, politically-blind “daily 6″ that clog these boards.
How much revenue would be gathered if the tax rate were amended to tax the 48% of US tax filers who currently pay no income tax a flat rate 5%? Would that be more or less than the revenue from the “richest 1%” by not extending the “tax cut for the rich”? Follow-up question: If you were in the richest 1%, would you be selling your stocks now and buying tax-free Muni’s??
Recent Grad
November 11th, 2010
6:17 pm
ojp4president, There you go, using logic again. That will never fly. What you need is some rhetoric. Use a lot of words that are emotionally flammable. That’s what the people want. Give the people what they want. Let them eat cake!
itpdude
November 11th, 2010
6:29 pm
Macro economics will instruct that when the economy is bad, you don’t raise taxes.
You also don’t cut spending.
More nuanced is that a raising in the tax rate by 3.6% on the wealthiest 2% will not hurt the economy. In fact, several of those in the top 2% have advocated for the increase for the top 2%. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, etc.
Linda
November 11th, 2010
7:24 pm
Before I sign off for tonight, I have 2 messages.
Veterans & active duty members, I appreciate your service. I have been on my knees thanking you for your devotion to our country, defending our Constitution, our freedoms, our history, our faith & our way of life.
As we watch the Atlanta Falcons beat the Baltimore Ravens tonight in the GA Dome, we will appreciate Arthur Blank for using his success to bring pride, enthusiasm, fun & revenue to our state & to other Falcons fans in the Southeastern US. We admire Blank for his dedication to recruiting the best coaches & players that his money did buy. We cannot forget that these outstanding athletes & team members are supposedly the evil, money-hungry rich people the socialists/progressives find too greedy to reap the rewards of their abilities & hard work.
Go Falcons! Go Conservatives! God Bless America!
No More Progressives!
November 11th, 2010
8:17 pm
CJ
November 11th, 2010
2:27 pm
I read the Fair Tax book IJ…and it’s sequel. Let me know if you have any questions.
Yes, I have a question. How does the Fair Tax work?
You read the book my butt.
Martin Williams
November 11th, 2010
8:38 pm
Tea Party folks you all talked about deficits and spending by big government. Well, another tax cut is NOT going cut into the deficit but ADD to the deficit and 800 plus bases that we support means government spending will continue to go up. This is simple economics idiots.
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
November 11th, 2010
8:50 pm
Martin Williams,
Apparently you are the imbecile that doesn’t understand economics. Contrary to your simple thought process federal tax revenues go up when you cut taxes. Its counter intuitive but its true and was proven with the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts. Why? Because businesses have more money with which to invest and hire- more money and hence more economic activity in which the same dollar gets turned over many more times- thus resulting in more tax revenues. In other words the economic pie gets bigger and with a bigger economic pie you have higher tax revenues to the federal govt. Why this is so mysterious to big govt folks like yourself is mind numbing.
Ian
November 11th, 2010
8:58 pm
This is nonsense. The wealthy have done better in the last 10 years than ever in US history. Even Buffett & Gates both have repeated many many times that taxes should be raised on their class, and immediately.
Anything less is stupid. This whole “starve the beast” idiocy has never worked, as nobody has ever decreased ANY serious spending (nor will they – just end the USA’s economy eventually), and is why republicans have contributed 3 times as much to the national debt over the last 58 years than dems.
barking frog
November 12th, 2010
5:05 am
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
November 11th, 2010
8:50 pm
federal tax revenues go up when you cut taxes.
————————————————-
Lowering taxes raises taxes.
Kyle
November 12th, 2010
8:23 am
Wrong Kyle, economists agreed that cutting taxes in a time of war was a really stupid thing to do. How is that tax cut working out for America, Kyle? Are you living in the past like Wooten, too?
Raising taxes in peace time, (Peacetime, you object? Yes, Peacetime. The two bush wars are unjustified and are waged only in the collatera l(brain) damaged conservative ideology where humans are dominoes and exist only as fodder for capitalism’s evil-twin: war. Pure Capitalism doesn’t work very well without war, (or pirates).
We are now an evil country again. The satanic side of god, so poetically mentioned on our money, is the face the world now sees.
jconservative
November 12th, 2010
9:16 am
OK. After your update I sent Leslie an e-mail and added “raising the eligibility age for Medicare” to the list. Slowly raise the age as we did on Social Security under the Reagan/O’Neill compromise.
A Hearty Cheese Sauce
November 12th, 2010
9:22 am
Obamanomics has failed, as it that were a surprise. You libtards better get accustomed to being handily defeated.
ojp4president
November 12th, 2010
10:15 am
@Linda “We cannot forget that these outstanding athletes & team members are supposedly the evil, money-hungry rich people the socialists/progressives find too greedy to reap the rewards of their abilities & hard work.”
I don’t know a single person that is upset at wealthy people for being wealthy. I know a lot of people who are upset at a system that rewards wealth with greater wealth (without hard work), and punishes the hard work of the working class to maintain the advantages of the wealthy.
oldtimer
November 12th, 2010
10:19 am
I think welfare benefits and entitlements for food stamps etc should be stopped if you have more than one child. Everyone understands one mistake, but four or five or six…give me a break. Maybe after one we could insist on norplants so there are no more……..
Red Tide
November 12th, 2010
12:36 pm
Has anyone even figured out which side of the fence The Community Agitator In Chief is on these days? One day he says no to Bush tax cut extensions, then the next day he says they’ll expire. But the real question is if these liberal socialists are going to remove the child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction. I’d like one libDemwit to ’splain how those two are for the “rich” only.
But we have the G20 people giving the Community Agitator the middle finger on Chinese economic policy and currency pushing. How great is that? And then we have news like this:
“When the Obama administration launched its flagship foreclosure prevention program in early 2009, it pledged to spend up to $50 billion helping struggling homeowners. But the government has so far only spent a tiny fraction of that.”
Can’t wait for my health care insurance premiums to go up next year too – I was LIED to when told by the Moronocrats that they wouldn’t go up. And you idiots on the left think this clueless president is great for America? Only in libtard land.
What if
November 12th, 2010
1:28 pm
Truly amazing. I’m just a Ph.D. statistician, not an economist, but SURELY there are TONS of HARD data that would show us pretty specifically at what income levels it makes sense to cut/keep/raise marginal rates. I DO see very convincing data that the disparity in income between the median income and high incomes has increased dramatically. If that’s not class warfare, what the heck is, Kyle? If you ACTUALLY are conservative then you should be rational, not just yet another Republican (or Democrat, doesn’t matter at all) tent meeting idealogue. The evidence I run into suggests that the well-to-do not only wouldn’t be hurt by an increase in rate (or the absence of a few of their bribery gained loopholes) but the continued ‘tax cut’ has had NO, ZERO, NADA impact on economic (jobs) growth. Their additional revenue just gets put in ‘the bank’ (wall street, whatever). WHERE’S YOUR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, KYLE?
j
November 12th, 2010
1:42 pm
barking frog
November 12th, 2010
5:05 am
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
November 11th, 2010
8:50 pm
federal tax revenues go up when you cut taxes.
————————————————-
Lowering taxes raises taxes.
——
Dude both of you are wrong. If this were the case then the federal tax rate should be 0.1%
What you said is only true for only small reductions and only if the taxpayers spend the additional income in the U.S. and it is turned over multiple times.
this is not science where what goes up must come down.
j
November 12th, 2010
1:50 pm
Linda
November 11th, 2010
7:24 pm
Before I sign off for tonight, I have 2 messages.
Veterans & active duty members, I appreciate your service. I have been on my knees thanking you for your devotion to our country, defending our Constitution, our freedoms, our history, our faith & our way of life.
As we watch the Atlanta Falcons beat the Baltimore Ravens tonight in the GA Dome, we will appreciate Arthur Blank for using his success to bring pride, enthusiasm, fun & revenue to our state & to other Falcons fans in the Southeastern US. We admire Blank for his dedication to recruiting the best coaches & players that his money did buy. We cannot forget that these outstanding athletes & team members are supposedly the evil, money-hungry rich people the socialists/progressives find too greedy to reap the rewards of their abilities & hard work.
Go Falcons! Go Conservatives! God Bless America!
—–
Aks him why he keeps asking the public to build him a stadium?
CJ
November 12th, 2010
3:28 pm
Since Kyle’s away, I thought I’d respond to “No More Progressives” curiosity about the so-called FairTax (always a popular topic of conversation).
Of course when debating this proposal, rhetoric is just as important as facts. Call it a consumption tax, and you’re a great American. Call it a sales tax, and you’re trying to destroy America. Say the rate is 23 percent (inclusive), and you’re honest. Say that the rate is 30 percent (exclusive), and you’re a liar.
In fact, the proposed FairTax would replace all federal income taxes (including estate, capital gains, Social Security, Medicare,…) with a single federal 30 percent sales tax applied to both goods and services (including mortgage interest and health care expenses). That means that once the FairTax takes effect, an item with a pre-tax price of $1.00, will have a post-tax price of $1.30 (plus state and local sales taxes).
Supporters argue that if the price tag says $1.00, then that’s what you’ll pay at the register because the FairTax will be included in the advertised price. But since marking goods and services this way isn’t required by the legislation, they’re wrong. If the price tag says, $1.00, then 30 cents will be added at the cash register.
Supporters also argue that we should refer to it an inclusive tax because income tax rates are inclusive. Therefore we should be able to compare the FairTax proposed rates with income tax rates. But that’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. In any given year, people can spend significantly more than they receive—such as when they buy a house, a car, or have major medical bills. If people are under the impression that they’re paying a tax that’s roughly equivalent to 23 percent of their income (or less due to the prebate proposal), when in fact, they’re paying a significantly higher (or lower) rate due to annual income/spending disparities, then supporters are doing themselves a disservice by referencing the tax as inclusive. They’re also performing a disservice to those who haven’t familiarized themselves with the proposal, since most would assume who that the advertised 23 percent is an exclusive rate just like the state and local sales tax rates that they’re used to.
I could go on forever about this tax and it’s prebate, but the main thing to remember about the proposed “23 percent inclusive consumption/30 percent sales tax” is that these advertised rates are established in the proposed legislation for one year only (proponents don’t want their supporters to remember this). The FairTax rate would be automatically adjusted every year using a formula included in the legislation. If the advertised rate doesn’t generate projected revenues (we all know what happens during an economic slowdown), then the FairTax rate goes up up up. No votes needed. Nice.
No More Progressives!
November 12th, 2010
3:49 pm
In fact, the proposed FairTax would replace all federal income taxes (including estate, capital gains, Social Security, Medicare,…) with a single federal 30 percent sales tax applied to both goods and services (including mortgage interest and health care expenses). That means that once the FairTax takes effect, an item with a pre-tax price of $1.00, will have a post-tax price of $1.30 (plus state and local sales taxes).
I knew you didn’t read the book.
Anything you buy has 23% of it’s value as imbedded taxes. Therefore, an item selling for $1.00 is actually worth $.77. You then add the Fair tax onto that figure, and your back at a sales price of $1.00. State taxes are not figured in here.
There is no additional 30% added onto the item, as CJ erroneously suggests. This is the elementary form of the concept; someone wh read the book surely would know this.
Also, CJ forgets that select items (like food) are exempt.
Read the book my butt.
CJ
November 12th, 2010
3:55 pm
“Anything you buy has 23% of it’s value as imbedded taxes. Therefore, an item selling for $1.00 is actually worth $.77. You then add the Fair tax onto that figure, and your back at a sales price of $1.00.”
I’m pretty sure that I wrote, “Supporters argue that if the price tag says $1.00, then that’s what you’ll pay at the register because the FairTax will be included in the advertised price.” Yup. I see that that statement is still up there.
NMP is going by what’s in the book. He should, as they say, “read the bill.” There’s nothing in the legislation that would require the tax to be imbedded in the actual price (not exactly transparent).
CJ
November 12th, 2010
4:11 pm
correction”…embedded in the
actualadvertised price…”CJ
November 12th, 2010
4:19 pm
By the way, it’s been a few years, but I could have sworn that Boortz and company made a big deal out of the fact that the FairTax proposal had no exemptions whatsoever, including food (they were arguing on behalf of the tax’s simplicity). They proposed the prebate in lieu of exemptions for necessities.
ojp4president
November 12th, 2010
11:11 pm
“One day he says no to Bush tax cut extensions, then the next day he says they’ll expire. But the real question is if these liberal socialists are going to remove the child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction. I’d like one libDemwit to ’splain how those two are for the “rich” only.”
Don’t let the facts slow you down. The first day he said that he might be willing to compromise and the media took that as extending all the cuts–it was never said.
Furthermore, it’s clear you don’t understand any of the suggestions made by the BIPARTISAN deficit reduction committee nor did you read it. The suggestion is to cut all tax rates and eliminate a number of deductions, thereby reducing the actual tax rate for some people and increasing it for others. Going from 30% taxes and numerous deductions to a flat rate of 18% without deductions would probably save most middle class tax payers while also simplifying the process of filing for taxes.
I would suggest educating yourself before trying to criticize others for their beliefs.
buzz
November 13th, 2010
1:37 pm
The Bush tax cuts for the rich have been in place for several years already. And have produced zero jobs. Now Repubs. Argue it will kill jobs to take them away? BS. The only thing those taX cuts are doing is EXPLODING our deficit. If Obama extends them. He will be a one term Prez.
No More Progressives!
November 15th, 2010
12:40 pm
That means that once the FairTax takes effect, an item with a pre-tax price of $1.00, will have a post-tax price of $1.30 (plus state and local sales taxes).
No. A $1.00 item with the embedded taxes removed is $.77. With the Fair tax added back at 23%, it would be $1.00. You added 30% back to your example, arbitrarily and deceptively.
Smoke & mirrors. You lefties are just going to have to understand that you do not have first dibbs on my earnings, no matter who or what you are. Disolve the IRS. Tomorrow.