I'm gonna highlight every rightwing nut from now til November! Here is number ONE.....
From Think Progress, Pat Garofalo.....
Stephen Moore calls for raising taxes on the poor in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in January. President Obama has expressed a desire to preserve the cuts for the middle class while letting tax rates for the wealthy reset to where they were during the Clinton administration. Conservative lawmakers and pundits have been fearmongering that allowing the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire will kill job creation and small businesses (despite the fact that fewer than 2 percent of small business owners will be affected). Last night on CNBC, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore went so far as to say that he can’t “see the sense” of allowing cuts for the rich to expire, and then advocated that taxes be raised on the poorest Americans in order to finance more tax cuts for the rich:
I just don’t see the sense of this. In fact, if I could have my ‘druthers, I’d raise the ten percent tax rate to fifteen percent and lower the [top] rates.
Adopting such a plan would only exacerbate income inequality that is already the worst it has been since the 1920’s. According to the latest data, “the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007.” The top 1 percent of families now receive nearly 25 percent of the country’s income, after earning less than 10 percent in the 1970s. This year the Bush tax cuts will give millionaires more in tax breaks than 90 percent of Americans will make in total income.
10 hours ago
33 comments:
I could understand his thinking for the sheer greediness and want for more money, but he actually believes taxing the poor so the rich can keep more money, is intelligent and sane tax policy. I suppose he also thinks that if we give rich people more money, they will turn around and give it to poor people, like creating a job for them. Another lie we have heard since Ronnie (ray-gun) Reagan.
GEEZZZZZZZ
If that would happen the poorer one who vote repug would still be dumb enough to vote for them.
That is certainly one of the dumber ideas I've heard in a while. Let's tax the people who have no money to give more to the ones who already have it all.
What an idiot! What a republican!
I'm gonna have fun highlighting all the nuts! Just look at the list, it's endless! LOL
It figures...typical Republican! Keep up your highlighting of the right wing nutjobs, we need to be aware of all of them!
Interesting post Sue. A few points:
Repealing the tax cuts only affect 2% of small business owners because Obama's budget proposes a $5000 tax credit per each employee hired. Take with one hand and give with the other...
Carter tried this and it did increase employment... Until the program was suspended, then the layoffs kicked in, and the economy never improved.
How you look at this depends on your economic philosophy. If you believe government can spend the money more efficiently than the free market, then it makes sense to support this.
I'd like to know to what evidence you point to give you confidence in this belief.
Finally, did you know Herbert Hoover raised taxes in 1932, and economists generally think this contributed to the depression?
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html
Here are a few more balanced articles FYI:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-04-06-Obama-tax_N.htm
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-budget-lets-bush-tax-cuts-expire-2010-02-01
Finally, the super rich are super rich for a reason. Could be greed, could be hard work. Anyway, they will find a way to hide their money. Instead of hiring people here in the US they will just move their money to a capitalist market like China.
Sue, I hope you have nothing else to do...lol You are looking at a full time job calling out these jerks..
Glad you are on it.. we need to know who and what they stand for... if anything.
Silverfiddle,
As shown in this link and this link, the annualized change in GDP/capita increases more rapidly as the tax burden increases.
One could interpret this as verification that the government CAN spend money more effectively than the free market.
We already know that the government can provide health insurance on a more effective basis than private companies as evidenced by a less than 5% overhead for Medicare versus 15% to 30% overhead for private insurance companies.
Jerry: Of course it does. GDP includes government spending. The more a government spends, the higher GDP goes, which is why by itself it is an incomplete indicator of economic health.
The real question is what is the result?
How were people doing in 1938?
The people in George H.W. Bush's 1990 were doing much better and unemployment much lower.
@Jerry: "...less than 5% overhead for Medicare versus 15% to 30% overhead for private insurance companies."
Thank you for bringing up this common myth.
When you remove taxes, fees and other regulatory compliance costs from private insurance that medicare doesn't have to pay, medicare loses:
But, as you might expect, when you compare administrative costs on a per-person basis, Medicare is dramatically less efficient than private insurance plans. As you can see here, between 2001-2005, Medicare’s administrative costs on a per-person basis were 24.8% higher, on average, than private insurers.
Busting Medicare's Low Overhead Myth
Economic issues are rarely settled by one quote or data point. There are two sides to every story.
I recommend to everyone that they read widely and especially that they read those they disagree with and those who challenge their beliefs.\
And if private spending did better than government spending then the GDP would increase faster with more private spending than the opposite.
So, if private insurance companies are as, or maybe even more, efficient than Medicare, why do they take an extra 15% for Medicare Advantage, while providing little, if any, additional benefits?
How you look at this depends on your economic philosophy. If you believe government can spend the money more efficiently than the free market, then it makes sense to support this.
I'd like to know to what evidence you point to give you confidence in this belief.
How about the era between the 1940s and about 1979?
Sometimes it's too easy.
Your heroes are failures. Their economic policies are failures. Hoover was actually not a bad guy-HIS mistake was listening to his right wing.
Clinton taxed the rich in 1993, and damned if the sky DIDN'T fall in. As a matter of fact, I believe there was a little run of prosperity in there...
You're obfuscating Jerry. Once again, GDP is not the whole story. 1990 was a much better year than 1938, which proves that point.
Jolly: Yes, it is easy to refute what you say:
1940-1970's was an historical anomaly. We were the only industrial power standing. Once the other powers had rebuilt, the world became competitive again.
Clinton did raise taxes on the rich and there was also a broad-based tax decrease (almost the same happened in Reagan's first two years).
We enjoyed a great economy under Clinton because he was smart enough to continue Reaganomics and not mess with it.
I'm glad to see you're a fan of that era. Reagan-Bush 1-Clinton was a golden era of unprecedented growth in a very competitive global market. I'm glad you brought it up!
If Reaganomics was so great why did it run a deficit -- a big one.
Because they spent like crazy. Revenue also went up, but they spent it faster than it came in. Next question?
And if he had not cut taxes, revenues would have gone up even quicker.
Can you provide some proof? I don't know if historical data backs you up on that.
Check out this link.
Here is an excerpt.
Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded.
There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that tax collections could have been expected to grow after 1981. Let's simply use 1981 as a baseline, multiplying it 8 times, and compare that to what was really collected over the next 8 years.
Individual Income Tax Collections (millions) (1)
Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $285,917 $367,692
1982 297,744 356,366
1983 288,938 332,033
1984 298,415 328,470
1985 334,531 354,677
1986 348,959 359,307
1987 392,557 392,557
1988 401,181 387,128
1989 445,690 411,533
-----------------------------
82-89 total: 2,922,691
1981 (times 8) -2,941,536
-----------------------------
Net 8-year loss -18,845
Corporate Income Taxes (millions)
Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $61,137 $78,623
1982 49,207 58,991
1983 37,022 42,544
1984 56,893 62,623
1985 61,331 65,024
1986 63,143 65,015
1987 83,926 83,926
1988 94,508 91,224
1989 103,291 98,092
------------------------------
82-89 total: 567,439
1981 (times 8) -628,984
------------------------------
Net 8-year loss -69,545
Combined individual and corporate income tax loss: $88 billion.
Check out this link.
Here is an excerpt.
Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded.
There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that tax collections could have been expected to grow after 1981. Let's simply use 1981 as a baseline, multiplying it 8 times, and compare that to what was really collected over the next 8 years.
Individual Income Tax Collections (millions) (1)
Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $285,917 $367,692
1982 297,744 356,366
1983 288,938 332,033
1984 298,415 328,470
1985 334,531 354,677
1986 348,959 359,307
1987 392,557 392,557
1988 401,181 387,128
1989 445,690 411,533
-----------------------------
82-89 total: 2,922,691
1981 (times 8) -2,941,536
-----------------------------
Net 8-year loss -18,845
Corporate Income Taxes (millions)
Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $61,137 $78,623
1982 49,207 58,991
1983 37,022 42,544
1984 56,893 62,623
1985 61,331 65,024
1986 63,143 65,015
1987 83,926 83,926
1988 94,508 91,224
1989 103,291 98,092
------------------------------
82-89 total: 567,439
1981 (times 8) -628,984
------------------------------
Net 8-year loss -69,545
Combined individual and corporate income tax loss: $88 billion.
Jerry: Your unsupported contention that had Reagan not cut taxes revenues would have went up is pure speculation. There is no way to prove it.
He cut taxes and the economy grew. Tax revenue grew with it, but at a slightly lower rate.
This OECD table reveals that Huppi only gave you part of the story. Unfortunately, I could only find it in PDF format: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf
Corporate tax/%GDP 1975: 2.9 1985: 1.9 1990: 2.4 2006: 3.3
Total Revenue/%GDP 1975: 25.6 1985: 25.6 1990: 29.9 2006: 28
So my friend, even after the evil Reagan tax cuts and the evil Bush tax cuts, the revenue as percentage of GDP has still gone up.
Go here and see the chart of federal data. It is more comprehensive, is based on official data, and covers a larger span of time. The data in question can now be seen in a proper, larger context : http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
As a side note, you would do well to be suspicious of anyone like Huppi who jumps through Rube Goldberg hoops to "prove" some obscure or counter-intuitive point. Unless it's the the Freakonomics guys doing it, I would be very skeptical.
The trick Huppi played on you (and it's a tired old Krugman trick) is to pick an advantageous baseline and argue from there. He only shows you a sliver of time when the trend did what he needed it to do to prove his point. Pan out and you will see his decrease was a statistical blip in an upward trending line. So, his narrow point that revenue percentage went down slightly is correct, but when you look at the larger trend, it is inexorably upward.
Intellectually honest people don’t indulge in such tricks--they start with US government statistics and the standard baseline that goes with them.
You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
Follow these two links for authoritative data and you’ll see what I’m talking about:
OEDC Stats: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf
Government stats: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/hist.html
You will notice a difference in the OEDC numbers and the US numbers. That is because they use different methodologies, but the trends are the same.
I will grant Huppi that during the Reagan years receipts %/GDP did go down from a high of around 19 to a low of about 17.5. The percentage was back to pre-Reagan levels by 1997. BTW, because GDP increased so much, the actual dollar values Huppi uses are way big. So the more successful Reagan is, the bigger Huppi's damning tax gap becomes. Cute jujutsu.
Huppi is totally wrong about the Kennedy tax cuts: GDP grew and revenue percentage stayed steady.
As a final point, the purpose of a tax cut (from a conservative point of view) is to take money away from the government and keep it in the hands of the businesses and people who earned it. So keeping revenue/GDP % steady or lowering it is the goal. So you can see that in this progressive nation, the best even Ronaldus Maximus could do was stem the tide for a few years.
As a fiscal conservative, my criticism of all of this is that they did not cut spending and therefor increased the national debt.
On the upside, Reagan’s tax cuts grew the economy big time: 1980 GDP = 2726 billion, 1988 = 5008 billion
That is especially awesome when you consider it was period of low inflation and a strong dollar.
We give to much credit for tax cuts increasing national economic growth. Tax cuts have never increased growth (revenues) enough to not cut spending. Tax cuts are not the only reason national economics become healthy, raise revenues, or increase growth. In fact, the highest rate of growth happened when we were taxing ourselves at twice the rate we are taxing ourselves at now.
My contention is, and the data confirms, the economy grows faster with a tax increase than a tax decrease. I agree that the economy grew under Reagan. It would have grown faster if he did not cut taxes.
Oh, and now it looks like you like GDP, so I would refer you back to one of my earlier comments.
Also, I see from your statement,
"the purpose of a tax cut (from a conservative point of view) is to take money away from the government and keep it in the hands of the businesses and people who earned it. So keeping revenue/GDP % steady or lowering it is the goal"
that as a conservative you are finally admitting that the purpose of a tax cut is to stifle the economy (lower GDP) rather than stimulate it.
With that as your stated goal, I agree that a tax cut will help you achieve it - particularly if you rein in government spending at the same time.
Thank you for your honesty.
Jerry, I'm trying to be patient here...
The data does not prove your contention. Look at the government data for all of the 1900's. It just ain't so. You obviously did not read what I said about statistical tricks.
This is complete conjecture that is impossible to verify:
"It would have grown faster if he did not cut taxes."
I am using GDP because you use GDP. I did not call it bogus data, I merely said it is no good to compare it to government spending because government spending contributes to it.
Taking money away from government does not stifle GDP! Look at the data from the Reagan years, dammit!
You yourself observed that revenues/GDP shrank under Reagan. Yet, the economy grew, almost doubling in 8 years.
Less revenue, more economic output. You are wrong and I just proved it.
I have debated you in a spirit of intellectual honesty, charity, and goodwill, and you keep slinging smart-ass remarks and going in circles.
PhDs argue this stuff all the time and nothing is resolved because economics is not a math problem that is decidedly solved. You look at history and the data in that context.
We have fundamental philosophical differences. You think government drives the economy, I say free enterprise does. I will point out that there has never been a successful demand economy.
You're in over your head, Jerry. I suggest you read some real books and not liberal claptrap.
Silver,
You are the king of "slinging smart-ass remarks and going in circles"
I have experience with your debate attitude, personally.
Well, I have posted and linked the official government data, so I don't know what else I can do...
I think we are going in circles. We are back to what I said originally.
What I said was that "the annualized change in GDP/capita increases more rapidly as the tax burden increases".
Thanks for the discussion. You are right. We have fundamental philosophical differences.
Finally! We agree on something!
"Thanks for the discussion. You are right. We have fundamental philosophical differences."
Thanks to you too for the discussion. Every one of this is an opportunity to dig in a do some research.
Post a Comment