PDA

View Full Version : Why did the regime push to raise taxes on the middle class?



LWW
01-02-2013, 08:25 AM
Tax increases for 77% of Americans ... all at ince now Obots, explain how you were always in favor of middle lass tax hikes.

Soflasnapper
01-02-2013, 10:55 AM
Since this is clearly not true as to federal income tax rates, to what then do you refer?

The ending of the FICA payroll tax break of 2%? It's not an increase, but the ending of the time-limited temporary cuts, as scheduled. Frankly, except for Obama's strong insistence before, these would already have expired 2 years ago, from the GOP's opposition to them and their extension O won at that time. Putting it another way, the American people have been paying 6.2% FICA payroll tax FOREVER (well, at least since the Reagan/Greenspan Commission deal in the mid-'80s raised them there from 4.2%). What will they be paying now, after your alleged tax hike? 6.2%.

LWW
01-02-2013, 11:15 AM
I was betting Snoopy would be the first to argue that paying more ax wasn't a tax increase.

Soflasnapper
01-02-2013, 01:25 PM
So you were wrong, AGAIN!???!?! (Gosh, hard to believe!)

It's semantics, again. Nobody raised that tax. Someone LOWERED it, temporarily, and the temporary nature of that lowering was known in the original bill lowering it. That temporary lowering ended, although it was first extended for another temporary period. So you're saying that anyone providing a temporary tax break is also raising taxes, although the taxes never are raised from the status quo ante, even after they are 'raised'?

Well, why not claim that. After all, a similar (bad) argument worked great to gain the recall of the California governor Gray Davis.

LWW
01-02-2013, 05:01 PM
Till mystified by English?

Here's how it works when I'm right, that isn't evidence of being wrong.

It is astounding how the cabal insists that canceling a tax cut isn't raising taxes ... but not canceling a tax cut is an additional tax cut.

Soflasnapper
01-02-2013, 05:20 PM
Nobody thought you could parse any language with the slightest ambiguity. You've disabused us of any idea that is so, repeatedly.

Not that it's the weakest part of your claim. That would be this part:
Why did the regime push to raise taxes on the middle class?


No evidence for that part at all, amiright? Before we get to the poor understanding you display about the meanings of words, let's deal first with this misstatement of the facts.

While we wait for your explanation of that claim, here's a comparable situation in the business world. When my company leases new space, we negotiate the base rent. Often, rent is waived for 3 months or more as compensation for our expense of build out. So, we go from paying $0 rent to paying full rent, after the waived period. Question: did our rent go up? Because we had to begin to pay what we'd negotiated as our exact rent?

You could say that, but it would lead to the odd claim that despite having a lease contract, somehow the landlord slipped us a rent increase. That isn't what happened, of course-- we were paying the same rate all along, AND there was an offsetting credit allowed. The rent didn't go up-- the credit went away.

You use a low grade equivocation technique to propound these false analyses. Always have. It's your key go-to move.

LWW
01-03-2013, 05:05 AM
C'mon ... spit it out ... you'll feel better ... you were now always in favor of middle class tax hikes ... WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA!

Soflasnapper
01-03-2013, 10:47 AM
You have a good point there, although you may not know what it is.

I do believe that a full return to the Clinton-era tax rates is probably necessary, if we are to have a chance to re-right the fiscal ship under something like normal order. That's exactly what Simpson-Bowles recommended among many other steps. That's a key reason why Paul Ryan, leading the GOP faction on the panel to oppose S/B, wouldn't vote for it. It's what Alice Rivlin recommends as well. I think it is mistaken to make all these increases immediately, as does Alice Rivlin (although S/B said to do it immediately, iirc). Why? Because tax hikes ARE contractionary as to economic activity, and the largest part of the current deficits is the economic shortfall of this high UE situation. It's more important to get economic activity back up closer to trend than to try futile austerity measures.

What's been going on is that the way the American economy has been working for 30 years has been squeezing most households, as whatever share of the large amount of productivity gains received by the non-rich has mainly gone into larger health care costs in their compensation, not into real wage increases. A narrative sprung up that it was only the oppressive federal income tax that caused all these problems, and that by reducing that burden, things would be fixed. That monomania was never plausible, and it was a deliberate fraud in my opinion to hide the internal contradictions of our economic system and the choices imposed on it by the Galtian overlords.

The looting and rape of the economy by the MIC, the rent-seeking medical system, the titanically fraudulent banking system, those with vast fortunes, and etc. (mainly the same characters overlapping) cannot be much remedied by a tax cut or a tax credit, but that's been the mantra, which has been a dodge and a racket.

So, to be clear, long ago the idea of a sunsetted payroll tax, or a partial payroll tax rollback, was raised (by the GOP iirc)-- I opposed it at that time as an unwise measure that further threatened the longer term finances of SS. I think the reason Obama proposed it was the GOP pedigree, the idea that maybe it could get passed, and the emergency need for any kind of stimulus of money back into the hands of workers. As a short emergency policy, time-limited, I did support it. As the 10 year loss of tax revenues under a full extension of the Bush tax cut was scored at $4 trillion, and the making permanent those rates for all below the top bracket was most of it-- $3.2 trillions or so-- I also thought any such extension should be temporary, not permanent.

But politics intrude on these policy considerations, distorting what would be the correct economic policies by politically dictated defensive and offensive positions. When all options are bad, and one must choose a bad option that is least bad, people can easily get support against that option because, and they would be right, it is a bad option. And, still, it must be taken. It's the kind of brutal triage one can only learn from experience. People with less discernment, or a political animus, will never understand it, or will always pretend they don't understand it.

cushioncrawler
01-03-2013, 02:07 PM
"I do believe that a full return to the Clinton-era tax rates is probably necessary, if we are to have a chance to re-right the fiscal ship under something like normal order."
The important thing iz full employment. Something that the usofa haznt had for a long time.
RE-RIGHT THE FISCAL SHIP -- iz a sort of lie.
NORMAL ORDER -- iz a sort of truth.
DISTORTING .... CORRECT ECONOMIC POLICIES -- read distorting krappynomix.
Even Krugman, the best krappynomicyst in the usofa, shows that despite all of hiz good stuff he iz a bit of a twirp.
mac.

LWW
01-03-2013, 03:20 PM
You have a good point there, although you may not know what it is.

I do believe that a full return to the Clinton-era tax rates is probably necessary, if we are to have a chance to re-right the fiscal ship under something like normal order. That's exactly what Simpson-Bowles recommended among many other steps.

Do you just make this stuff up, or are you that malinformed?

SB proposed steep reductions in both rates and deductions.

Soflasnapper
01-03-2013, 05:15 PM
Right you are! :beaten:

I misremembered that the TOP RATE was returned, for all the rates being returned, to the Clinton era rates. I regret my error, and also state a LOT of tax raising was still in the SB plan. Not only putting up the top bracket to Clinton's top rate, but taxing dividends and cap gains at that same elevated rate. (To be fair to myself, David Stockman and probably Alice Rivlin as well did call for returning all income brackets to the Clinton era rates, again iirc.)


And while you’re reading this list, remember: Simpson-Bowles is a centrist proposal.

1) Simpson-Bowles ends the the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000. And note that they do that before (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/14/simpson-bowles-style-tax-reform-begins-by-ending-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/) they reform the tax code. The expiration of the tax cuts is built into their baseline. That way, their reform of the tax code starts from a revenue level that includes the revenue from those upper-income Bush tax cuts.


2) There are a lot of tax increases in Simpson-Bowles. $2.6 trillion over 10 years, to be exact. That’s more than President Obama ever proposed. It’s way more than the Republicans have ever proposed. It’s $1.8 trillion more than in the “Bowles plan” that Boehner is proposing. Think about that: To follow the Simpson-Bowles recommendation on taxes, you’d have to take the $800 billion Boehner is proposing and then raise taxes by more than the $1.6 trillion Obama is asking for.


3) There are so many tax increases that the plan is nearly 1:1. According to CBPP’s calculations, Simpson-Bowles includes $2.9 trillion in spending cuts and $2.6 trillion in tax increases. That’s 1.1:1. If you add the $800 billion in projected interest savings to the spending side, then it’s 1.4:1.


4) Simpson-Bowles taxes capital gains and dividends as normal income. The key difference between Simpson-Bowles-style tax reform and the tax reform plans we heard about through the election is that S-B eliminates the preferential rate on capital gains and dividend income. That amounts to a huge tax increase on the rich, and it’s how S-B manages to lower rates while raising revenue and retaining progressivity.


5) Charities, homes, health care and states. Simpson-Bowles turns the deductions for charitable contribution and mortgage interest into 12 percent, non-refundable tax credits. It caps the tax exclusion for employer-provided health care and then phases it out entirely by 2038. It eliminates the exemption for state and local bonds.





6) Simpson-Bowles raises the gas tax by 15 cents. Just saying.


7) Congress has already passed 70 percent of the discretionary cuts. Under the Budget Control Act, discretionary spending will be $1.5 trillion lower from 2013 to 2022 than was projected in the Congressional Budget Office’s 2010 baseliner. That means that 70 percent of S-B’s cuts to discretionary spending are done.


8) Simpson-Bowles cuts security spending by $1.4 trillion, not including drawing down the wars. That’s far deeper than what’s in the law now, far deeper than anything the White House or the Republicans have proposed, and deeper, I believe, than the sequester cuts that so many think would devastate the military.


9) The Social Security changes. Simpson-Bowles makes three main changes to Social Security. It increases the taxable maximum on income to 90 percent of all income, which raises $238 billion over the next decade. It uses a different measure of inflation to slow cost-of-living adjustments. It raises the retirement age to 68 in 2050 and 69 in 2075.


10) Paul Ryan voted against Simpson-Bowles. And so, for the record, did Dave Camp and Jeb Hensarling, the other two House Republicans on the commission. Of the House Democrats, John Spratt voted for the proposal, and Xavier Becerra and Jan Schakowsky voted against. Among the senators, it was just the reverse: All three Republicans (Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg, and Mike Crapo) voted for it, as did two of the three Democrats (Dick Durbin and Kent Conrd). Max Baucus voted against it.


11) Simpson-Bowles went down in the House, 382-38. In March, Reps. Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette brought a modified version of Simpson-Bowles to the floor. This incarnation of the proposal was actually quite a bit to the right (http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-28-12bud.pdf) of the original, including smaller tax increases and defense cuts. It failed, and failed big (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/wonkbook-house-reaches-bipartisan-deal-to-reject-simpson-bowles/2012/03/29/gIQAfucdiS_blog.html).


These 11 facts should shed light on a couple of Washington’s enduring mysteries.


First, it should be fairly clear why the White House figured Simpson-Bowles was a nonstarter. They thought (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-reason-the-white-house-didnt-embrace-simpson-bowles/2011/08/25/gIQAq1j2dR_blog.html) that if they endorsed it, Republicans would oppose it en masse, and hang every unpopular tax increase and spending cut around the White House’s neck. In retrospect, I think (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/obama-should-have-used-simpson-bowles/2011/07/11/gIQADR4hRI_blog.html) the White House miscalculated here, but it’s easy to see why they made the decision they did. The proposal the White House ultimately released included far fewer tax increases and security spending cuts than Simpson-Bowles.

Second, as popular as Simpson-Bowles is among the CEO community, and on Wall Street, most of those folks don’t know what’s in it. Wall Street doesn’t tend to be hugely supportive of taxing capital gains as normal income, for instance.


Third, Republicans may want to associate themselves with Erskine Bowles, and they may want to attack Obama for not doing enough to support Simpson-Bowles, but they want nothing to do with Simpson-Bowles itself. After all, Boehner could have endorsed the Simpson-Bowles plan rather than the “Bowles plan,” and that would have won him huge plaudits in the media, and many more friends in the CEO and Wall Street communities, at least at first. But he didn’t, and, from his perspective, for good reason.




From Ezra Klein's WonkBlog part of the WaPost site, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/04/11-shocking-true-facts-about-simpson-bowles/

LWW
01-03-2013, 06:25 PM
There you go again ... arguing you were right even though you were wrong.

Soflasnapper
01-03-2013, 07:24 PM
What a churlish response to my 'Right you are!' admission, complete with the well-known international icon for 'beaten'-- taking the boxing glove to the face! (I made that part up, but about the well-known international icon. As a joke. I mention that explicitly 'cause you appear unable to understand things.)

Explaining my faulty memory isn't stating I was right-- it's explaining how or why I posted the wrong information.

You are unable to process written information well. Do you do any better with verbal communications?

hondo
01-03-2013, 10:38 PM
What a churlish response to my 'Right you are!' admission, complete with the well-known international icon for 'beaten'-- taking the boxing glove to the face! (I made that part up, but about the well-known international icon. As a joke. I mention that explicitly 'cause you appear unable to understand things.)

Explaining my faulty memory isn't stating I was right-- it's explaining how or why I posted the wrong information.

You are unable to process written information well. Do you do any better with verbal communications?

Brother wilson seems deeply disturbed these days. His grammar and syntax seem way out of kilter which are often symptoms of a deeply disturbed
mind yet he doesn't even seem to notice.
I used to try and help him with his spelling and composition but there are so many in each posting these days that I'm afraid it's beyond my energy level.
Even Sev is more coherent. I fear that the johnny persona is starting to swallow the larry persona and we all know how that would end.
Of course I no longer read johnny/larry's posts. johnny larry is permanently banned by me and larry johnny has been suspended until
the 10th or 12 at which time I will re-evaluate larry johnny.
If he has settled down by then I may re-instate him on a purely probationary status , of course.

LWW
01-04-2013, 04:39 AM
So you didn't say you were wrong followed by a long quote?

Who is posting under your SN?

There have been several dembot threads about how they simply adore SB ... and I assume there will be more ... followed by showing them that they hadn't a clue.

The same thing applied to decades of the left bleating about how we should have followed the Carter energy plan ... hich I agree we should have ... followed by them recoiling in horror when they learn the plan was drill everywhere and burn more coal.

Soflasnapper
01-06-2013, 01:31 PM
If allegedly 'dembot' threads praised SB, then they were not much in the way of liberals. The liberal or further left take on SB was to call it the 'cat-food commission,' implying its implementation if passed will beggar seniors and have them eating cat food to be able to even attempt to afford other living expenses.

I think many on the left would support raising the preferred income tax rate on dividend, interest and cap gains to the normal income tax rate. They'd also like raising the cap on SS taxation to cover 90% of all income. But equally, they'd oppose changing the cpi calculation (lowering it), or raising the eligibility age for SS by two years (it's already in law to go to 67), or eliminating tax exclusion treatment for state bond interest payments, health care costs to employers, and etc.

The lengthy quote was to show why SB is NOT supported by the GOP, and they are wholly non-serious when they complain why didn't the president support 'his own commission's findings'? Because they had no ratified findings (failing to achieve the required votes to recommend anything), for starters, and because the GOP House types would have moved heaven and earth in opposition.