tagged w/ Tax Rates
H.R. 8, The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Bill, Passes Senate : Here’s The Official Text. Now, About The House . . .More on this later, but how good a bill this is for progressives? Perhaps, unfortunately, this is the best we could get in light of the fact that the administration conceded too early – and when not under pressure to do so – the $250,000 tax rate increase threshold, and the number of taxpayers comprising that group is large. Passing tax increases on the wealthier folks with yearly incomes below $400,000 will be nearly impossible until the 114th Congress in 2015, Have our elected officials now decided that a joint filer with an adjusted gross income of $399,999 is a “middle class” income? . . .
http://latestbloomer.uskoa.com/h-r-8-the-fiscal-cliff-bill-passes-senate-heres-the-official-text-now-about-the-house/More on this later, but how good a bill this is for progressives? Perhaps,... more
New Year’s Eve Fiscal Cliff NO-gotiations – Here’s Senate GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s ‘To Do’ ListWicked busy!
http://latestbloomer.uskoa.com/new-years-eve-fiscal-cliff-no-gotiations-heres-senate-gop-minority-leader-mitch-mcconnells-to-do-list/Wicked busy!... more
Fiscal Cliff, New Year’s Eve : Democrats, Biden – ‘We Won The Election, Let’s Surrender.’ Progressive Push NeededWHat next?!
http://latestbloomer.uskoa.com/fiscal-cliff-new-years-eve-democrats-biden-we-won-the-election-lets-surrender-progressive-push-needed/WHat next?!... more
On Friday I wrote that a fiscal cliff deal that would appeal to enough GOP House and Senate legislators to provide a winning margin, particularly in the House, would invite a flanking movement from the left. 1 That may indeed be brewing. Today’s reports2 portray Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at impasse over both the $250,000 income ceiling for maintaining the Bush era tax rates, and the proposal sought by all Republicans and some Democrats (including the President) to use a new inflation indexing equation when adjusting social security benefits and tax rate income levels, the so-called Chained CPI. Dylan Matthews at the Times perfectly summed up its real attraction to our punch drunk pols this . . .
http://latestbloomer.uskoa.com/fiscal-cliff-countdown-unchain-us-senator-reid-from-chained-cpi/On Friday I wrote that a fiscal cliff deal that would appeal to enough GOP House and... more
Ask Fiscal Clifford
http://latestbloomer.uskoa.com/three-days-until-fiscal-cliff-will-a-house-progressive-uprising-scuttle-a-deal/Ask Fiscal Clifford... more
After the new year, the Congress has gone off the fiscal cliff and tax rates have gone up. Other aspects of the fiscal cliff will also have occurred by then, but the cliff metaphor is inappropriate for these aspects, as they occur gradually over the course of the year. For tax rates, they jump higher and the IRS begins the process of higher deductions. Thus, the analysis goes, with the advent of higher taxes, pressure grows on the House to pass the Senate bill. However, it remains the case that unless....... http://www.mfr.com/sample_research.aspx?fname=%20TWFpbi9JbnRyYWRheS9FY29ub21pYy9VU0Vjb25vbWljMTIyMTEyMTQzOVMucGRmAfter the new year, the Congress has gone off the fiscal cliff and tax rates have gone... more
Watch out belooooowwwwwwww!!!!! http://latestbloomer.uskoa.com/?p=3171
Norquist Jumps Off The Fiscal Cliff! The First Five Self-Defeating Things About His Non-Endorsement Endorsement Of John Boehner’s “Plan B”House votes at 8:00 pm, or thereabouts http://latestbloomer.uskoa.com/?p=3102
Lifeguard . . ? Lifeguard . . ? ANyone . . ?
http://latestbloomer.uskoa.com/jeeves-draw-mr-norquists-bath-whose-turn-in-norquists-bathtub/Lifeguard . . ? Lifeguard . . ? ANyone . . ?... more
You comment, the regulars tee off on you, then YOU get banned before you can reply.
http://www.billschmalfeldt.com/2011/09/30/these-right-wing-nut-job-blogs-dont-care-much-for-opposing-views/You comment, the regulars tee off on you, then YOU get banned before you can reply.... more
It's like giving them the combination to all the safes in the Treasury and the keys to the front door at Fort Knox. http://www.billschmalfeldt.com/2011/09/03/registering-the-wealthy-to-vote-is-un-american/It's like giving them the combination to all the safes in the Treasury and the... more
Let me see if I can't cheer you up a little by telling you how corporations are helping carry our tax burden. http://www.billschmalfeldt.com/?p=26060Let me see if I can't cheer you up a little by telling you how corporations are... more
The American debate over taxes is ferocious and highly partisan. Some, mostly Republicans, reflexively oppose all taxes. Others, mostly Democrats, decry the lack of progressivity and fairness in the tax system and favor higher tax rates for the wealthy.
This debate isn't new. The same arguments have been repeated, with the same passion, since our income tax system was created—first during the Civil War and then—after its initial rejection by the Supreme Court—following the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. A wonderful book by Steven Weisman, The Great Tax Wars, brings this history to life.
But as Weisman makes clear, one thing has changed in a spectacular manner, and that is the American public's—and American politicians'—willingness to defend high marginal income-tax rates as an essential and proper way to pay for the cost of government. Until a generation ago, many Americans and their representatives argued vehemently that the wealthy ought to pay more in taxes, but that position has drastically declined in popularity. Weisman sets the debate in the context of the battle between those who invoke justice—progressive taxes create equity and hence justice—and those who invoke virtue—the belief that hard work should be rewarded and taxing higher income at an elevated level creates a disincentive to the hard work we should promote.
Leaders of a century ago invoked justice in remarkable language that is unimaginable today. President Woodrow Wilson called paying taxes "a glorious privilege." Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed that "taxes are what we pay for civilized society." In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt said, "In this time of grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war; no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000." That $25,000 is the equivalent of $323,208 in today's dollars. Can you conceive of a modern president suggesting that no American should earn more than $323,000 after taxes? (President George W. Bush went to war twice without once calling for such a common sacrifice to pay for it.) And President Harry Truman in 1948 vetoed a broad-based tax cut, even in the face of an expected and eventual congressional override, and then asked for a tax increase following his upset victory.
But President Ronald Reagan transformed our conversation about government and turned taxes into the enemy of progress. It is commonly thought that President George H.W. Bush's violation of his "read my lips" pledge cost him re-election and President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increases cost him control of Congress.
Central to the intellectual debate about marginal tax rates has been the question of whether higher rates discourage people from working. President Reagan is famously reported to have observed that, as an actor, once he hit the top marginal rate—then 91 percent—he stopped making movies for the rest of the year. The result of sky-high marginal rates, this anecdote was supposed to prove, was declining productivity and economic growth.
Is this true? Let's look at a graph of the nominal top marginal tax rate in any given year and GDP growth in that year.
A caveat—obvious but critical—is in order. Simultaneity does not equal causation. Annual growth rates are a consequence of many factors, macro and micro, and the isolated impact of marginal tax rates on growth is hard, if not impossible, to discern from these numbers alone.
That said, it's obvious that there is no correlation between higher marginal tax rates and slowing economic activity. During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak—91 percent or 92 percent—the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent. The fact that the marginal rates were what would today be viewed as essentially confiscatory did not cause economic cataclysm—just the opposite. And during the past seven years, during which we reduced the top marginal rate to 35 percent, average growth was a more meager 1.71 percent.
More sophisticated efforts to analyze this relationship also produce decidedly murky results. An excellent review of this in the Yale Law Journal, "Why Tax the Rich? Efficiency, Equity, and Progressive Taxation," concludes that there is scant, if any, legitimate academic support for the proposition that moderate, as opposed to dramatic, increases in marginal rates have any impact on the willingness of the wealthy to participate in the economy.
So where does this leave us? Probably with Weisman's conclusion—that the debate between justice and virtue will continue for years to come. But this debate may be little more than a Rorschach test—an inkblot into which we read our underlying values about income distribution and social welfare. Those who see taxes as the bane of progress will still claim that higher marginal rates are the enemy of economic growth. Those who favor greater progressivity will say there is no evidence of such a claim. They will conclude—and they will be right—that the wealthier can afford to pay more, with no harm to the nation's economic growth.The American debate over taxes is ferocious and highly partisan. Some, mostly... more
President Barack Obama remains committed to not raising taxes on U.S. families earning less than $250,000 despite some conflicting statements from senior members of his economic team, the president's spokesman said Monday.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs restated the assurance after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers appeared to leave open the possibility Obama would tap middle-class Americans' income.
"I'm going to deal with this and I'll do this one more time," Gibbs said after repeated questions from reporters about the differences between the economists and Obama. "The president was clear. He made a commitment in the campaign. That commitment stands."
Geithner and Summers sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to reduce the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
During his presidential campaign, Obama pledged "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime" and repeatedly said middle-class families would not be effected.
But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
Those comments dominated Gibbs' daily meeting with reporters.
"The president was clear during the campaign about his commitment on not raising taxes on middle-class families," Gibbs said. "And I don't think any economist would believe that in the environment that we're in raising taxes on middle-class families would make any sense, and the president agrees."
Geithner appeared on ABC's "This Week." Summers appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS' "Face the Nation."President Barack Obama remains committed to not raising taxes on U.S. families earning... more
The disgruntled Liechtenstein man who ratted out super-rich tax dodgers and sold the stolen information to the US and a few other countries lives in hiding and has $10 million bounty on his head (that was only to be expected...). Did he pay any tax on the millions of dollars and euros he made selling this information? I seriously doubt it.
American News Project: They hide an estimated $100 billion a year from the IRS, but now the U.S. Senate is turning up the heat on super-rich tax cheats. The man who ratted out some of these tax dodgers now lives in hiding and has a $10 million bounty on his head. This is a story straight out of our new Gilded Age -- one of billionaires, foreign bankers, corruption, secrecy and, of course, greed.The disgruntled Liechtenstein man who ratted out super-rich tax dodgers and sold the... more