VIA
Showing posts with label middle class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle class. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The Looming GOP Tax Hike
Dec 1st, 2011
Well, it's filibuster time again.
Politico reports:
"The Senate blocked a measure Thursday night that would expand the current payroll tax holiday and pay for it by a surtax on millionaires.
With a 51-49 vote, the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward on the payroll tax cut bill favored by Democrats – legislation that likely never had a chance because of the GOP’s opposition to the additional tax on the rich."
Well, it's filibuster time again.
Politico reports:
"The Senate blocked a measure Thursday night that would expand the current payroll tax holiday and pay for it by a surtax on millionaires.
With a 51-49 vote, the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward on the payroll tax cut bill favored by Democrats – legislation that likely never had a chance because of the GOP’s opposition to the additional tax on the rich."
Yes, there is a competing Republican plan. That plan is also certifiable nonsense and is beneath discussion. It is worth noting that Republicans are only following the lead of their true master, Grover Norquist...
ThinkProgress reports:
"Norquist met with Republican members today to let them know that opposing the extension of the payroll tax cut — which would provide many families an extra $1,000 a year — would not amount to supporting a tax increase, National Journal’s Billy House reported today."
ThinkProgress reports:
"Norquist met with Republican members today to let them know that opposing the extension of the payroll tax cut — which would provide many families an extra $1,000 a year — would not amount to supporting a tax increase, National Journal’s Billy House reported today."
Remember, over the course of the last year Norquist has been quite clear:
Allowing this tax credit to expire is not a tax increase.
Allowing the top quintile rates under the still effective Bush 2 policies to expire is a tax increase.
In other news, down is up if Norquist says it is, so there.
By the way, should the credit not be extended, well over $250 BILLION dollars will be taken out of the demand economy, potentially dropping GDP growth next year by as much as .5% and costing our country 400 thousand jobs.
Oh well.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Raise. Taxes. Dammit. cont...
Oct 8th, 2011
I've been arguing for quite some time that we have to raise taxes dramatically. The rabid devotion within both parties towards maintaining the lowest revenue rates in more than half a century are absurd. Howard Gleckman, of the the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institutions, sees little reason to hope for better when the best proposal we've gotten, the American Jobs Act, is based around such ridiculous premises as this:
"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s plan to fund a $445 billion stimulus, err, jobs bill with a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires is not all bad. After all, Tax the Rich does make a nice campaign bumper-sticker. But it is mostly bad."
Agreed. Unless and until we restore rates to levels that correspond with sustainable government, we merely hasten our decline and our debt crisis.
"The idea, endorsed today by President Obama, would raise the average tax bill of those making a million or more by $110,000, the Tax Policy Center estimates. Almost nobody else would pay a nickel. What’s wrong with that, you might ask if you don’t happen to make a million. To start, it perpetuates the dangerous myth that we can address our fiscal problems by taxing only a handful of rich people. Unfortunately, as my Tax Policy Center colleagues showed so well a couple of years ago, we can’t. There are not enough of them– so their rates would have to be astronomically high (only about a half-million households will make a million or more in 2013).
Democrats now insist that somebody making $999,000 a year is in the struggling middle-class and needs to be protected from tax increases. It was ridiculous enough when President Obama decided that $200,000 ($250,000 for couples) defined middle class. It was even stranger when GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney adopted that number. Median household income in the U.S. is, um, $60,000. Sorry, but if we are going to get serious about the deficit, people making $200,000 (or even $100,000) have got to help out."
And it is this drop in the bucket from the wealthiest in America that Eric Cantor calls "dead on arrival."
I've been arguing for quite some time that we have to raise taxes dramatically. The rabid devotion within both parties towards maintaining the lowest revenue rates in more than half a century are absurd. Howard Gleckman, of the the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institutions, sees little reason to hope for better when the best proposal we've gotten, the American Jobs Act, is based around such ridiculous premises as this:
"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s plan to fund a $445 billion stimulus, err, jobs bill with a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires is not all bad. After all, Tax the Rich does make a nice campaign bumper-sticker. But it is mostly bad."
Agreed. Unless and until we restore rates to levels that correspond with sustainable government, we merely hasten our decline and our debt crisis.
"The idea, endorsed today by President Obama, would raise the average tax bill of those making a million or more by $110,000, the Tax Policy Center estimates. Almost nobody else would pay a nickel. What’s wrong with that, you might ask if you don’t happen to make a million. To start, it perpetuates the dangerous myth that we can address our fiscal problems by taxing only a handful of rich people. Unfortunately, as my Tax Policy Center colleagues showed so well a couple of years ago, we can’t. There are not enough of them– so their rates would have to be astronomically high (only about a half-million households will make a million or more in 2013).
Democrats now insist that somebody making $999,000 a year is in the struggling middle-class and needs to be protected from tax increases. It was ridiculous enough when President Obama decided that $200,000 ($250,000 for couples) defined middle class. It was even stranger when GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney adopted that number. Median household income in the U.S. is, um, $60,000. Sorry, but if we are going to get serious about the deficit, people making $200,000 (or even $100,000) have got to help out."
And it is this drop in the bucket from the wealthiest in America that Eric Cantor calls "dead on arrival."
Monday, September 19, 2011
The View From The Street
Sept 19th, 2011
The view from Wall Street, to be more specific. Follow the action on twitter.com using #OccupyWallStreet and on Facebook HERE
The view from Wall Street, to be more specific. Follow the action on twitter.com using #OccupyWallStreet and on Facebook HERE
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
I Keep Saying This...
June 1st, 2011
The crisis of American economy is one of willful design. Lawrence Mishel of The Economic Policy Institute published a paper a few weeks ago titled We're Not Broke Nor Will We Be that supports this view.
His conclusion is both clear and actually somewhat entertaining:
"There is an old joke about the Lone Ranger, who turned to Tonto and said, "We’re surrounded by Indians," and Tonto responds, "What do you mean by 'we,' kimosabe?'" That same logic applies to policymakers who claim that "we're broke." It matters who is included in "we." We, collectively, have been gaining income and wealth and will continue to do so. "We," the broad middle class, have not been gaining wealth and have not received much of the income gains of the past 30 years. Whether the broad middle class prospers in the next 30 years does not hinge on whether there will be substantial income growth; there most definitely will be. The future prosperity of the broad middle class hinges on the economic policies and structures that determine how that income is generated and shared. Are our federal and state governments "broke"? They certainly face deficits. Whether those governments provide the services we need will totally depend upon the political decisions made regarding taxing and spending. Taxation and revenues have diminished, both due to policy choices and the impact of the Great Recession.
So, are we broke? Only if we choose to be."
His conclusion is both clear and actually somewhat entertaining:
"There is an old joke about the Lone Ranger, who turned to Tonto and said, "We’re surrounded by Indians," and Tonto responds, "What do you mean by 'we,' kimosabe?'" That same logic applies to policymakers who claim that "we're broke." It matters who is included in "we." We, collectively, have been gaining income and wealth and will continue to do so. "We," the broad middle class, have not been gaining wealth and have not received much of the income gains of the past 30 years. Whether the broad middle class prospers in the next 30 years does not hinge on whether there will be substantial income growth; there most definitely will be. The future prosperity of the broad middle class hinges on the economic policies and structures that determine how that income is generated and shared. Are our federal and state governments "broke"? They certainly face deficits. Whether those governments provide the services we need will totally depend upon the political decisions made regarding taxing and spending. Taxation and revenues have diminished, both due to policy choices and the impact of the Great Recession.
So, are we broke? Only if we choose to be."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
