The Fiscal Cliff and Taxmageddon loom.
"Taxmageddon" is coming on January 1, 2013. What does that mean? Well, we (US taxpayers) can expect large tax increases. Romina Boccia, James Sherk and Katie Tubb of the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation, say:…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Clavos
the right started acting as if bound by reality instead of fantasy...
Are you "bound by reality," zing?
You just accept whatever "reality' serves you up, and when finished shuffle back, saying, "Please, sir may I have some more?"
You must have really liked GWB, then, zing, because he was as much reality as a heart attack, which is pretty much the effect he had on this place.
77 - Zingzing
By "reality" I mean not paranoid fantasies. Although I admit I may have found w to be a nightmare.
78 - Zingzing
"Throughout history successful people in any endeavour have been envied and hated by the proles."
Sometimes they're envied, sometimes they're hated, but rarely for the same reason.
"Today, land of the whiners and home of the indolent is a much more accurate description."
This is why you'll have a hard time winning elections. Do you really view those with less than you as such? Dig your grave, bigmouth.
79 - Zingzing
Or maybe you should point those words towards corporate America, since that's where all the bailout money went. Or maybe you should point those words at the rich, since they're whinging about losing their huge tax breaks. Or maybe you should point those words at yourself, since things aren't going your way as they have for so long, and since you're the one whining in the face of possible change.
80 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Throughout history successful people in any endeavour have been envied and hated by the proles.
And throughout history, too great an income equality has almost always led to increased social unrest...and the most successful nations in the world - the ones with the highest standards of living - are mostly ones with the least degree of income inequality.
But I get it - who gives a tinker's damn about the poor people, it's all their fault anyway. Instead, bow down and worship the Holy Job Creators like all Real Conservatives do....
81 - Baronius
Zing - That last comment of yours was completely wrong. The truth is, no one's paying the taxes that keep this country's benefit machine working. But if there is one parasitical class in the US that takes what they haven't earned and controls our fiscal policy, it's not the top 1%, it's the bottom 40%.
82 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
But if there is one parasitical class in the US that takes what they haven't earned and controls our fiscal policy, it's not the top 1%, it's the bottom 40%.
Riiiiiiight. Yep, we got all those poor peoples' lobbyists up there on K street chipping away at Paris Hilton's hard-earned money! That's why since 1980, the top 1%'s share of the income and total wealth have skyrocketed, while that of the rest of us has stayed stagnant or has fallen (see here).
Yes, if ONLY the poor people would stop doing things like voting for their own best interests - and they should also stop restricting poor people like Sheldon Adelson to the point where he's forced to spend $150M of his own money just to be able to make his voice heard over the din of poor people casting their votes...
...yes, if only the poor people would shut up and get back to work instead of voting, all of America would magically get better!
83 - troll
Baronius - maintaining a vibrant lumpen proletariat is a cost of doing business...a major social cost of choosing the capitalist model
84 - Baronius
Glenn, just because an idea is outside your paradigm doesn't make it wrong. You're thinking of crony capitalism as the only problem. But shake up your thinking a little. Imagine I were describing a different society in any period of history other than this one. There's a group of people who get money, housing, food, education, and medicine from the state's coffers. You'd be calling them nobles and chasing after them with a pitchfork. We just happen to be the only society wealthy enough to try to create a class of idle rich at the financial low end.
85 - Dr Dreadful
That's true, Baronius, but in other periods of history the people who lived at the expense of the state did so because they controlled the state.
86 - Clavos
By consistently voting Democratic, (and getting them to do so was the goal of the party when it began to set up the entitlements) those people, to a significant degree, DO control the state, Doc.
87 - Igor
Baronius, did you really say "...a class of idle rich at the financial low end."?
Does that, then, require a class of lazy poor at the financial high end?
My head is spinning.
88 - zingzing
baronius, your second-to-last comment was completely wrong. the truth is, every dollar of benefit money becomes more than a dollar in the economy, without which, the rich would not be rich. while for every dollar of money the rich earn, lots of it goes into tax shelters, or off-shore. the rich are the vampires of the american economy, not the other way around, and we could deal with losing them far more than they could deal with losing the rest of us.
clavos, the poor do not control the state. they only get what they get because if they didn't the state would fail and they'd have some heads off. so they're given just enough to survive on, which means they're too busy doing that to get truly riled up at their situation, while the rich, the real masters, laugh it up. (and don't forget that if your money is worthless, it doesn't matter how much you have piled up.)
89 - zingzing
why does the right despise the poor ("indolent whiners," says clavos; "parasites," baronius calls them,) so much? and why are you so defensive of the uber-rich?
the uber-rich can take care of themselves, no? they benefit from this society in huge ways. yet, the idea that the poor would try to access the benefits of living in a society is viewed as so very wrong. i wonder why we even formed any societies at all? not that mutual protection or mutual benefit or any of that matters.
90 - Baronius
I'm not despising the rich or the poor, old or sick people, taxpayers or non-taxpayers. I'm suggesting that the thinking being expressed in recent comments is narrow in its assumption that the rich are taking and the poor are giving. I don't typically think in terms of rich and poor - wealth and earnings are different concepts, and earnings vary across the life cycle - but if you're going to cast things in the rich/poor terms, then you've got to address the fact that the rich are mostly "costing" the government money by not giving, but the poor are costing the government money by collecting. But we're all taking more than we should, collectively.
I'm not trying to protect the uber-rich. I just hate bullying. The kind of anti-rich populism that's being done on this thread smacks of bullying.
91 - Clavos
@#90: Well said, Bar.
The kind of anti-rich populism that's being done on this thread smacks of bullying.
QFT
92 - Clavos
Do you really view those with less than you as such?
Some I view that way have less than I, true; but in that remark I was thinking more of the masses of middle class people currently welcoming and participating in Obama's class war and population-dividing tactics. They are his pawns and don't even realize it (some probably do realize, but they support him); and they likely won't until the country is well and truly rent asunder.
There are more than 300 million guns out there, zing, and not a few are assault weapons. If this bitterness and acrimony goes on too long, I believe the guns will come into play. It's only a matter of time.
I am really looking forward to 2016, when we will finally be rid of that Machiavelli in the White House.
93 - roger nowosielski
#91, 92
With all due respect, we're witnessing a rather new phenomenon on American political/social scene: a contempt of the rest of us by the rich, a kind of contempt that was not only un-American but downright unheard of in our past. It may be difficult to trace the beginnings, but the Reagan era of deregulation, mergers & acquisitions, the times when America was forced to compete with other economic powers and seek a cheaper labor pool abroad, certainly qualifies. In the sixties and early seventies, the ratio of the CEO's pay to that of the rest of the labor force was reasonable and justifiable. Today it's astronomical, for which reason it is neither.
You haven't commented on my "silver lining" article. No matter. It still behooves you,
however, to listen to a short segment of Mike Huckabee's interview of David Frum (as per link). Although it falls short of making this very point as overtly as I have done, its all there nonetheless if you care to read between the lines.
In any case, I don't necessarily approve of bashing the rich that you both speak of and consider the greatest offense. Still, I thought this post may be go some way to restore the proper balance.
94 - Baronius
"With all due respect, we're witnessing a rather new phenomenon on American political/social scene: a contempt of the rest of us by the rich, a kind of contempt that was not only un-American but downright unheard of in our past."
Huh? Who says there is? And who says it's new? I'm not disputing either point, but I can't think of a reason to believe that either one is true. (I guess that means I am disputing them. Eh. You know what I mean. I just don't see a reason you'd say either.)
95 - roger nowosielski
That is certainly not one of your best comments, Baronius. The immediate impression that sticks out: dancing on the point of a needle.
How many angels are there? Are you one of them?
96 - Deano
Machiavelli? Seriously? If you are referring to Obama, he's done a piss poor job of being Machiavellian. He survived the election primarily on the back of a decidedly underwhelming GOP performance, with the thickest set of morons to ever chase a presidency as his opponents.
Obama wasn't stupid, but he was far from Machiavellian - he moved to the centre on most policies, loathe though the right is to admit it. He successfully leveraged the many, many groups the GOP seemed suicidely focused on alienating (i.e. women, immigrants, anyone with an income below $200,000 per year etc.). With the current state of the economy, all the GOP had to do was forward a policy direction based in reality and commonsense, rather then psycotic rhetoric, and you would have pulled enough centralist swing votes to pitch the election in a different direction.
If the Republicans had fielded a candidate that moved to the centre and effectively refused to cater to the far-right nut job segment of the party, Obama would have been a one-term president.
They didn't...please stop whining about it. Stupidity lost the election not Machiavellian design.
97 - roger nowosielski
I have to agree with Deano, Clav. You're certainly giving Mr. Obama too much credit, more credit in any case than he deserves.
There's much to be said for the force of understatement.
98 - Zingzing
"The kind of anti-rich populism that's being done on this thread smacks of bullying."
That's rich. The rich have the slickest ride they've had in half a century, and when the country hits hard times, it's not the rich, but the poor that should be expected to bare more of the burden? Please. The rich have had it their way for so long, and it did not work. Start producing if you want to keep your kickbacks.
Really, if you gave money to someone only to watch that money disappear, would you say that was a good investment? No, you wouldn't. It's not bullying, it's common sense. If the rich had anything other than self-interest riding on it, they'd absolutely agree. This economy runs on consumerism, and you're eager to fuck over the consumer? Good fucking luck, dimwit.
99 - Clavos
Deano, he's got you convinced he's just short of inept and stupid; he's neither. He's got the Republicans and the rest of the country convinced we're headed for a "fiscal cliff" that will destroy us all and the country in the bargain if we don't give him the more than $1 trillion in new taxes he's demanding, and everyone's staring up at the sky, waiting for it to fall.
Machiavellian.
With no small amount of Pied Piper thrown in.
100 - Glenn Contrarian
Now that's interesting!
Baronius said:
We just happen to be the only society wealthy enough to try to create a class of idle rich at the financial low end.
Then Dr Dreadful said:
That's true, Baronius, but in other periods of history the people who lived at the expense of the state did so because they controlled the state.
Then Clavos said:
By consistently voting Democratic, (and getting them to do so was the goal of the party when it began to set up the entitlements) those people, to a significant degree, DO control the state, Doc.
That reminds me of a certain hopeful phrase by Lincoln:
...that government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, shall not perish from the earth. (caps mine, of course)
Oh, silly, silly me for thinking that we should encourage everyone to vote....
101 - Clavos
Did anyone say anything about discouraging people from voting? Perhaps in that special, unique comment thread inside your head, Glenn?
102 - Dr Dreadful
If you take out that last non sequitur sentence, Glenn does actually hit a very ironic nail right on the head here, Clav.
(And yes, I chose every word in that second clause very carefully!)
103 - Igor
@96-Deano: good comment, very astute.
104 - Clavos
(And yes, I chose every word in that second clause very carefully!)
Please, Doc, ya didn't have to draw me a picture.
Just sayin'
Sigh.
105 - Dr Dreadful
Preemptive strike, Clav...
106 - Glenn Contrarian
Clav -
Did anyone say anything about discouraging people from voting? Perhaps in that special, unique comment thread inside your head, Glenn?
It's interesting that a politically-aware conservative from Florida should have to ask that question, especially considering what happened with the voting lines this past election....
107 - Clavos
I'm well aware of what is alleged about the lines in Florida, and in fact, as a member of moveon.org (betcha never woulda guessed that, eh Glenn?), I was asked to and did sign a petition to Ricky Scott to do something about the early voting meltdown. I even posted a poster about it from moveon on Fb.
So what's your point? We weren't discussing that before now was my point.
108 - Glenn Contrarian
*after being digitally slapped silly, mumbles* "um, no, I didn't see that coming at all" *then sheepishly crawls under the keyboard*
109 - Dr Dreadful
You're in danger of getting lung cancer, Glenn, what with all the things you've literally and figuratively been told to put in your pipe and smoke today...
110 - Clavos
For Glenn, Jet et alia.
So much for your vaunted 91% tax rate.
An excerpt:
...the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%, but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic, very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.
111 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
You're in danger of getting lung cancer, Glenn, what with all the things you've literally and figuratively been told to put in your pipe and smoke today...
Yes, time was here in Washington state we could get Twinkies but no marijuana, but now we can get marijuana but no Twinkies.
And thanks to you (and Clavos) for the criticism - I do need it and appreciate it.
112 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
But the question is, can you show us a time when a measly 4.5% hike in tax rates resulted in financial ruin? I've pointed out twice when we had higher tax rates, and both of those times (one of which was not so long ago) we had a national boom.
And according to nationalmemo.com/suddenly-americas-top-corporate-leaders-are-shunning-tea-party-extremism/ (the software filter wouldn't let me post it as a hyperlink) it's not just us liberals pointing this out:
- Fred Smith, CEO of Federal Express and a former economic advisor to Senator John McCain...denounced as “mythology” the notion that raising the top rate would damage the U.S. economy.
- Randall Stephenson, chief executive of AT&T, the nation’s largest telecom company, told Business Week that higher taxes and more revenue must be part of any budget agreement.
- So did Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs.
- And so did a group of defense industry executives from companies such as United Technologies, RTI International, and Northrop Grumman.
- David Langstaff, the CEO of TASC, at a Washington press event organized by the Aerospace Industries Association, a defense lobby, said income tax rates “need to go up some.... This is a fairness issue - there needs to be recognition that we’re not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we’ve fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up.”
Clavos, I know you may feel it's not fair that the rich pay more taxes...but it is also not right and not fair that so many of the rich pay a lower percentage of their income than you or I do. It is not right that Romney paid only 13.9% taxes - capital gains income tax is not taxing the same money multiple times, it's taxing the interest made on that money, the profits made on that investment.
It is not right that the Republicans should demand that the lower classes - the ones who are least able to afford to pay a 35% tax rate - should be expected to pay that rate while defending 15% tax rates on capital gains income.
And when it comes to fairness, while it may not be fair that Joe Millionaire has to pay a few percent more, he's still a millionaire, and his kids can still get the best health care, go to the best colleges and be able to start out much higher on the corporate rung, whereas Miss Wal-Mart Check-Out Lady would happily pay that extra few percent if she were a millionaire, too. But instead, she worries about feeding her kids, making sure they have clothes to eat and a dry place to sleep. Making sure they go to the very best colleges and starting out high up on the corporate rung is a very, very distant dream.
It's like the CEO of FedEx and former McCain economic adviser said: it's simply "mythology" that raising the top tax rate would damage the nation's economy.
113 - Christopher Rose
The tech team are tinkering with the comments and anti-spam systems so there may be some irregularities occurring from time to time.
Please feel free to email me if you are having problems rather than posting multiple or test comments.
Christopher Rose
Blogcritics Comments Editor
114 - Igor
The rich in America have failed by their own standards.
For years they've been telling us that they are the "job creators" and so they need more money and power in their hands. But that is exactly what the Bush administration did and the Rich failed to produce jobs.
Therefore, we must revoke the big tax breaks to the rich, as well as any bailouts.
115 - Clavos
The thing is, you guys; if we took ALL the money ALL the rich own we wouldn't even begin to pay off the country's debt; this "tax the rich" thing is a strawman. That's why it bothers me that that man is targeting and focusing on the rich; I sincerely believe he's trying to create a large schism in the american population; to what end, I don't know, but nothing good comes to mind.
116 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
The key isn't to get the rich to pay off the nation's debt - it's to get them to pump their income back into their companies rather than socking their profits into the bank or taking them offshore. When given a choice of whether to pay the taxes or putting those profits back into the company, they'll almost always choose the latter...and that's a good thing for everyone, don't you think?
And if it were such a bad idea, I really don't think the CEO's above would have spoken out in favor of it.
To address your point about the country's debt, no, we're not trying to use their money to pay off the debt and you know it - that's a strawman of your own. We're trying to either get them to use their money to grow their companies (and therefore not pay their taxes), or they can pay their taxes and we can help rebuild our infrastructure. How can this possibly be a bad thing?
117 - Igor
Glenn is right: raising rich peoples taxes will drive money out of their mattresses and into the economy, where it will do some good.
118 - Clavos
When given a choice of whether to pay the taxes or putting those profits back into the company, they'll almost always choose the latter...
True as far as you stated it, but you oversimplified it by leaving out their third choice of avoiding paying the taxes AND keeping possession of their money.
119 - Dr Dreadful
I sincerely believe he's trying to create a large schism in the american population
Then perhaps someone should tell him there already is one.
120 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
They can only do so by (1) finding enough deductions that they won't have to pay, or (2) taking their money outside the country, or (3) engaging in tax fraud.
If they do the first, then that's good, too. Our history in the 1950's-1970's and the 1990's shows that not enough will do the second to really matter (because our tax revenues did not fall when the taxes were raised), and those who do the third care more about a few more cents on the dollar than about not committing felonies and doing jail time.
Your turn.
121 - Igor
American companies are using tricks to cause an enormous loss of corporate taxes to foreign countries. Usually this is a simple scheme that routes profits through a wholly owned shell in a foreign country so that taxes there fall under the Foreign Tax Allowance (FTA). Through that simple device Chevron, Exxon and Valero have reduced their US corp taxes to zero. An announcement over the weekend revealed that Google has saved $2billion on US taxes last year with that trick.
That's a loophole worth closing, but Boehner and McConnel and Paul Ryan will not close that loophole.
The huge bribes that large american companies have paid to politicians in the form of "campaign contributions" has paid off handsomely for those companies.
But it will destroy the USA by undermining it's finances.
Over the weekend the US BLM was busy auctioning off leases for shale oil lands in California, which will be another tax boon for Big Oil because California (alone among oil jurisdictions) charges NO extraction tax for oil.
While phony patriots in the republican party purposely look the other way, the USA is being robbed blind thru the cooperation of foreign governments and our over-privileged corporations.
122 - Clavos
Then perhaps someone should tell him there already is one.
True. And mostly generated (or at least exacerbated) by the present administration...
because our tax revenues did not fall when the taxes were raised...
Nor did they rise commensurate with the increases...
123 - Dr Dreadful
True. And mostly generated (or at least exacerbated) by the present administration...
No, mostly generated by money. The widening chasm between rich and poor is nothing new: it's been a major political issue for at least the last 20 years.
124 - clavos
The widening chasm between rich and poor is nothing new: it's been a major political issue for at least the last 20 years.
And Obama has been assiduously stoking the fires his entire time in office...
125 - Dr Dreadful
And Obama has been assiduously stoking the fires his entire time in office...
Good.