It's simple. End the "Bush Tax Cuts" for the top quintile.
via CBPP
Showing posts with label Bush tax cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush tax cuts. Show all posts
Monday, August 27, 2012
Friday, December 9, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
And You Thought The Bush Tax Cuts Were Bad?
Jun 16th, 2011
You may have heard about Republican Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty's recent tax proposals. Most analysts have focused their attention on Pawlenty's insistence that his plan would spur an annual growth rate of 5%. Such a claim is, as economist Michael Ettlinger of the Center For American Progress put it, "patently ridiculous."
As TPM reported, withering criticism is coming from the right as well:
"The trend growth rate is not going to be 5% in the United States," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the CBO under President Bush and a top GOP advisor, told TPM. "The market just doesn't support that. It just doesn't."
While a brief spurt of high growth is not uncommon coming out of a deep recession, sustained 5% growth appears a bridge too far. Pawlenty cited expansion periods under Reagan and Clinton as models, but neither president achieved comparable numbers -- in fact from 1980-2000 there was only one time in which growth surpassed 5% at all, a 7.2% boom in 1984 that immediately leveled off the next year.
"It's impossible" Robert Reischauer, former CBO director under Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton and current president of the Urban Institute, told TPM. "You get growth because of investment, an increased labor force, a rise in human capital, and innovation. Add all those components together and they don't sum up to 5% given what the labor force is going to be and the investment possibilities are."
While a critique of so stunning a claim is necessary, it is perhaps more valuable to look at T-Paw's numbers next to the disastrous Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003. The crippling expansion of the deficit that would result from these policies is not hard to estimate... merely to fathom. If we are ever going to grapple with the U.S. debt in an adult manner, we have to reject this devotion to the provably false supply-side mantra of the tax-cut as "cure-all."
Kevin Drum sums it up perfectly:
"As usual, a bone is thrown to us schmoes making 50 grand or so: our after-tax incomes would go up about 5%. Let's all go to Disneyland! But the real action is at the high end: income increases of 15-20% for the wealthy. Party time! And the super-rich millionaire class? It's Katy bar the door: they'll see their after-tax income go up by a walloping 33%. Time to buy that second yacht!
Say what you want about how boring Pawlenty is, but he knows his audience: scraps for the middle class who aren't in on the con while the wealthy who understand exactly what's going on rake in billions. Is that cynical behavior from this son of a milk truck driver? Sure. But hardly a surprise from anyone who knows the Republican Party's real power base. Pawlenty obviously knows it better than most."
Indeed. This proposal seems to have a lot less to do with organizing the country's finances than expanding the former Governor's campaign chest. But there are plenty of reasons to believe that the rest of the Republican field will embrace the plan generally. And this is dangerous.
You may have heard about Republican Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty's recent tax proposals. Most analysts have focused their attention on Pawlenty's insistence that his plan would spur an annual growth rate of 5%. Such a claim is, as economist Michael Ettlinger of the Center For American Progress put it, "patently ridiculous."
As TPM reported, withering criticism is coming from the right as well:
"The trend growth rate is not going to be 5% in the United States," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the CBO under President Bush and a top GOP advisor, told TPM. "The market just doesn't support that. It just doesn't."
While a brief spurt of high growth is not uncommon coming out of a deep recession, sustained 5% growth appears a bridge too far. Pawlenty cited expansion periods under Reagan and Clinton as models, but neither president achieved comparable numbers -- in fact from 1980-2000 there was only one time in which growth surpassed 5% at all, a 7.2% boom in 1984 that immediately leveled off the next year.
"It's impossible" Robert Reischauer, former CBO director under Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton and current president of the Urban Institute, told TPM. "You get growth because of investment, an increased labor force, a rise in human capital, and innovation. Add all those components together and they don't sum up to 5% given what the labor force is going to be and the investment possibilities are."
While a critique of so stunning a claim is necessary, it is perhaps more valuable to look at T-Paw's numbers next to the disastrous Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003. The crippling expansion of the deficit that would result from these policies is not hard to estimate... merely to fathom. If we are ever going to grapple with the U.S. debt in an adult manner, we have to reject this devotion to the provably false supply-side mantra of the tax-cut as "cure-all."
 |
| From Chuck Marr at The Center For Budget and Policy Priorities |
Kevin Drum sums it up perfectly:
"As usual, a bone is thrown to us schmoes making 50 grand or so: our after-tax incomes would go up about 5%. Let's all go to Disneyland! But the real action is at the high end: income increases of 15-20% for the wealthy. Party time! And the super-rich millionaire class? It's Katy bar the door: they'll see their after-tax income go up by a walloping 33%. Time to buy that second yacht!
Say what you want about how boring Pawlenty is, but he knows his audience: scraps for the middle class who aren't in on the con while the wealthy who understand exactly what's going on rake in billions. Is that cynical behavior from this son of a milk truck driver? Sure. But hardly a surprise from anyone who knows the Republican Party's real power base. Pawlenty obviously knows it better than most."
Indeed. This proposal seems to have a lot less to do with organizing the country's finances than expanding the former Governor's campaign chest. But there are plenty of reasons to believe that the rest of the Republican field will embrace the plan generally. And this is dangerous.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Paul Ryan Pamphlet Part 2 - Defense
April 11th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker
Having examined Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Path To Poverty in some detail, it's been frustrating watching so many rightist partisans and pundits respond by lavishing praise upon its "seriousness." My first critique, focusing on the tax implications alone, argued that it is largely removed from economic science as we know it.
It was satisfying to see Paul Krugman say much the same thing and for the same reasons a few of days later. He does, after all, have a little more experience reading budgets than I do.
"They should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all."
by F. Grey Parker
 |
| © copyright 2011 S. Harris |
It was satisfying to see Paul Krugman say much the same thing and for the same reasons a few of days later. He does, after all, have a little more experience reading budgets than I do.
"They should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Paul Ryan Pamphlet Part 1 - Taxes
April 5th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker
My first reaction when I finished reading The Path To Prosperity, Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) highly anticipated "budget," was to wonder where the rest of it was. It's like an introduction without a following body of work. The calculated lack of specificity is stunning. It's a buffet of political talking points.
There are certainly many scary charts, spooky graphs and a lot of Neo-Con think-tank phrases. But to call it a "budget" is an insult to arithmetic itself. In fact, at his press conference earlier this afternoon Ryan said it "is not just a budget, it’s a cause." With all due respect, faith doesn't secure the outcome of financial equations.
by F. Grey Parker
My first reaction when I finished reading The Path To Prosperity, Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) highly anticipated "budget," was to wonder where the rest of it was. It's like an introduction without a following body of work. The calculated lack of specificity is stunning. It's a buffet of political talking points.
There are certainly many scary charts, spooky graphs and a lot of Neo-Con think-tank phrases. But to call it a "budget" is an insult to arithmetic itself. In fact, at his press conference earlier this afternoon Ryan said it "is not just a budget, it’s a cause." With all due respect, faith doesn't secure the outcome of financial equations.
Let's look at the Ryan scheme:
"Keeps taxes low so the economy can grow. Eliminates roughly $800 billion in tax increases imposed by the President’s health care law. Prevents the $1.5 trillion tax increase called for in the President’s budget. Calls for a simpler, less burdensome tax code for households and small businesses. Lowers tax rates for individuals, businesses and families. Sets top rates for individuals and businesses at 25 percent. Improves incentives for growth, savings, and investment"
"Keeps taxes low so the economy can grow. Eliminates roughly $800 billion in tax increases imposed by the President’s health care law. Prevents the $1.5 trillion tax increase called for in the President’s budget. Calls for a simpler, less burdensome tax code for households and small businesses. Lowers tax rates for individuals, businesses and families. Sets top rates for individuals and businesses at 25 percent. Improves incentives for growth, savings, and investment"
Taxes are at their lowest levels in modern history and have been for years. There has been no corresponding expansion of the economy. What's more, the $800 billion in prevented "tax increases" he touts is predicated on the complete repeal of HCR. That is not going to happen. There is no demonstrably broad benefit to the U.S. economy from the hyper-wealthy having a tax rate of 25%. A 10% drop in the corporate rate with not one single loophole singled out for elimination is ridiculous.
We have to substantially raise taxes and soon. I say it. Krugman says it. Reich says it in no uncertain terms. In fact, a majority of Americans say it. And yet, Ryan skips merrily through an alternate reality.
Ryan actually cites economic projections from the Heritage Foundation as supporting data within the plan itself. The same Heritage Foundation that said "pro growth tax cuts... always create jobs" while arguing for the extension of the disastrous W Tax Cuts that didn't create jobs. As a matter of fact, the weakest ever post-Depression job creation accompanied that fiscal policy. Of course, that's not what Heritage had projected prior to their initial implementation. Matt Yglesias dug up this gem today.
Heritage prosperity projections that they insisted would follow passage of the W Tax Cuts...
The entire payroll expansion under W came to 2.3% which is almost six times smaller than the expansion rate under just 4 years of Jimmy Carter! Ryan's plan is a larger dose of the same failed "stimulative policies" which have caused this mess. But by all means, let's assume that Heritage is totally correct... this time.
The subject of our revenue in-stream is carefully packaged alongside political triggers designed to provoke panic:
"As economic growth deteriorates, it becomes harder for the government to raise revenue through taxes, and a vicious cycle ensues. If the nation ultimately experiences a panicked run on its debt, it will be forced to make immediate and painful fiscal adjustments (like the austerity program that has provoked riots in Greece)"
America/Greece comparisons are absurd. They are also dishonest. The crisis in Greece was caused by two principal factors. The first is that their economy was so much smaller than ours and not complexly diversified. The second is that they invested their national treasure heavily in our own under-regulated derivatives markets. These are the same markets that Mr. Ryan doesn't want to "over-regulate."
The entire payroll expansion under W came to 2.3% which is almost six times smaller than the expansion rate under just 4 years of Jimmy Carter! Ryan's plan is a larger dose of the same failed "stimulative policies" which have caused this mess. But by all means, let's assume that Heritage is totally correct... this time.
The subject of our revenue in-stream is carefully packaged alongside political triggers designed to provoke panic:
"As economic growth deteriorates, it becomes harder for the government to raise revenue through taxes, and a vicious cycle ensues. If the nation ultimately experiences a panicked run on its debt, it will be forced to make immediate and painful fiscal adjustments (like the austerity program that has provoked riots in Greece)"
America/Greece comparisons are absurd. They are also dishonest. The crisis in Greece was caused by two principal factors. The first is that their economy was so much smaller than ours and not complexly diversified. The second is that they invested their national treasure heavily in our own under-regulated derivatives markets. These are the same markets that Mr. Ryan doesn't want to "over-regulate."
What actually makes it "harder for the government to raise revenue through taxes," is cutting taxes, allowing rampant loophole abuse and refusing to impose taxes in the first place.
The obvious initial steps towards solving our problems are as follows; Expire the W Tax Cuts, return the highest marginal individual rates to Eisenhower Era levels and set the top corporate tax rate on profits at a flat 15% with no loopholes.
Describing Ryan's collection of fantasies as Reaganomic nonsense, which I did earlier today, is actually unfair to the Gipper. When President Reagan was confronted with the destructive and unsustainable reality of tax rates that were substantially higher than today's, he signed bills into law which raised them 7 times.
One must wonder. If Rep. Paul Ryan and his ilk were presented with an actual Reagan budget today, would they portray it as "progressive?"
This "Path" isn't conservatism. It's corporatism. It's less Jefferson than it is Mussolini.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The Top 1%
March 22nd, 2011
The devotion to tax cuts as a recipe for job growth is universally endorsed by the American conservative movement. This is increasingly hard to fathom. During the last decade, the most dramatic conversion of this theory into actual policy was undertaken. We must face the fact that the results of this experiment have not only failed to maintain balanced economic expansion relative to population, they have actually crippled it. The resulting collapse in revenue has put our country's credit rating at risk. If we do not eliminate a vast majority of corporate tax loopholes and raise the top marginal personal rate by at least 3 to 4 percentage points, the dream of America is very likely lost. Even the architects of trickle down theory are declaring this continued article of faith to be a disaster. I stipulate that furtherance of these tax codes is closer to insanity. Late last year, the following graphic was published by Jay Kimball. Let us revisit it, shall we? The vast American middle class could never have been created in the first place had this monetary system been in place from the 30s through the 70s.
The devotion to tax cuts as a recipe for job growth is universally endorsed by the American conservative movement. This is increasingly hard to fathom. During the last decade, the most dramatic conversion of this theory into actual policy was undertaken. We must face the fact that the results of this experiment have not only failed to maintain balanced economic expansion relative to population, they have actually crippled it. The resulting collapse in revenue has put our country's credit rating at risk. If we do not eliminate a vast majority of corporate tax loopholes and raise the top marginal personal rate by at least 3 to 4 percentage points, the dream of America is very likely lost. Even the architects of trickle down theory are declaring this continued article of faith to be a disaster. I stipulate that furtherance of these tax codes is closer to insanity. Late last year, the following graphic was published by Jay Kimball. Let us revisit it, shall we? The vast American middle class could never have been created in the first place had this monetary system been in place from the 30s through the 70s.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Quote Of The Day 2
March 17th, 2011
"The Bush Tax Cuts were the biggest fiscal mistake in history." -- David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
