Tax Rates And The Presidential Campaign
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-10/tax-rates-and-presidential-campaign
President Barack Obama called for a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. Diane and her guests discuss tax rates, sluggish growth in the U.S. economy and the 2012 presidential campaign.
Guests
Jason Furman
assistant to the president for economic policy; principal deputy director of the National Economic Council
David Wessel
economics editor, The Wall Street Journal; author "In Fed We Trust"
Chris Edwards
director, Tax Policy Studies; editor, www.DownsizingGovernment.org, Cato Institute.
Alan S. Blinder
professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University; former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The genleman just stated that the wealthy are the last people we should raise taxes on. Is he suggesting that we raise taxes on the poor alone? Should we end the tax cuts for those making under 250k a year? The stance these people will take to cater to the wealthy is amazing!
If we do what 70% want and spend more to stimulate the economy, let's require business to actually create jobs and not just set ever higher record profits for the capitalist investors
And if the private sector won't hire and create jobs, let's do an FDR style stimulus and have the public sector hire to perform public works.
The guy from the Cato Institute (as usual) is full of it. The top10% pay less taxes an I do and I make less than 30k a year now. Between tax breaks, shelters and offshore accounts they pay almost nothing. They've had the Bush tax cuts for over a decade now and where are the jobs. They're sitting on a trillion dollars overseas that could be used to create jobs. As for spending, how about the biggest welfare and entitlement programs there are, government military contractors like Halliburton. On the state level it's getting involved in credit default swaps that sent the states into insolvency not entitlements.
No, Mr CATO Institute, the richest DO NOT generate a higher proportion of the wealth produced in this nation.
They sit on the boards of our largest corporation and redistribute the bulk of the wealth produced in our nation to their fellow 1%ers.
Bob Walker wrote: "If we do what 70% want and spend more to stimulate the economy"
Where did you get this 70% number?
Mr Edwards continues to spew the Republican mantra regarding "job creators" and I don't believe it. During the 50's, tax rates on the wealthy were very high and it did not stop any of them from creating jobs or sheltering income, just as they do today. There are business owners I know who want customers to buy their products and can't hire until they get more customers. It's about putting money in the pockets of the people who are struggling even if they have a job, not about creating more $8/hour jobs.
The reality is that there are very wealthy people who are philanthropic and there are some who are simply greedy and believe they are better than the rest of us. They will take whatever they can get away with, and pay lobbyist's to make sure they can buy influence with our " representatives ".
The tax code is ridiculously complex, has been my entire life and I don't believe either party really wants to change anything. I was a registered Republican for 35 years, but left the party after 8 years of our cowboy president, and am now an Independent.
I was better off economically before 1977 and neither party has done anything to change the last 35 years for the middle class, and probably won't ever.
I hear no one talking about cutting spending on our nation's largest budget expenditure... our military and its global presence. Instead we focus on cutting programs that pale in comparison.
There should be a law against taxing rich people, you know, to guarantee full employment. Did you know that fat cats across the country wake up every day with a strong desire to create jobs? They love nothing more, but they just can't do it. Why? Because they have to pay taxes. Mitt Romney, a job creator, could never create any job if he did not have his assets in foreign tax havens.
Please, your guests must stop referring to Social Security and Medicare as "entitlements." They are not entitilements - I have been paying for them my entire life. It is the mismanagement of this money that has gotten it into trouble, and turns out to have been a bad investment on my part. Unfortunately, I have not been given a choice on making this investment.
john hutchinson wrote: "I hear no one talking about cutting spending on our nation's largest budget expenditure... our military and its global presence. Instead we focus on cutting programs that pale in comparison"
"largest budget expenditure"
What? were getting a barrage of made up garbage on this board.
The "high net worth" owned by the top 2% is composed almost entirely of investments in assets that either / or provide jobs, housing, consumer goods.
The discussions on NPR would have listeners believe those are being spent on frivolous consumption.
BTW, does it ever occur to these guys that using tax dollars to improve the infrastructure will reduce unemployment, the newly employed will be paying taxes and the infrastructure would be improved.
The politics of envy are being revived in the current debates and discussions on NPR.
Diane, why did you let your guest get a pass on the "gun to the head" reference? He used it three times in one long statement this morning.
Reducing taxes on high income does not lead to more jobs. Companies hire most people, not individuals. Also, consider who purchases the vast majority of the products created by these companies - the middle class. We are being squeezed by higher taxes (federal, state, local, property, payroll), higher prices (and yes, smaller packages for the same price is really a higher price), and stagnant wages. Soon, we will not have money to buy the products being created.
Fortunately, we have a global economy, and the rich can sell their products off shore.
I believe that equating universities with hedge funds and multi-millionaires and billionaires demonstrates the loss of values in our country.
Why in the world does anyone even get ANY tax deductions? I agree with a graduated tax format...30% of $10k per year leaves someone very little remaining to live on whereas 30% of $500000 leaves that person a whole lot of spending money. That said, if no one got any deductions the person with a $500000 income could not get out of paying their tax! If anyone in the government would come up with some courage they would stop the influence pedaling and rescind all tax breaks for everyone, lower taxes across the board, and re-work the cut-offs for the graduated system of income tax! After that, it is courage by lawmakers to slow spending. And, BTW...has anyone ever heard of a business tax that isn't paid by the public?...all businesses must raise their prices (or cut costs through lay-offs and innovation=less jobs) which puts the burden of that tax once again squarely on the shoulders of the public!
Our strongest economy was in the 1950s when the upper income tax rate was 90%. The "free trade" agreements simply facilitated outsourcing of jobs from the United States. When Clinton decreased spending he did it on the backs of the very poor. All he did was perpetuate poverty and every Republican administration since has done the same.
"The whole political perspective has moved to the left?"
ROAR! Even on the "liberal"Diane Rehm show's panels we only hear the right wing and centrists.
Wouldn't it be cool if we even _heard_ any ideas from the left!
Yes, President Obama has increased spending. But the population keeps growing. Therefore, the government must increase spending. If those on the right are so concerned about increased spending, they should advocate birth control.
dougs wrote: "Please, your guests must stop referring to Social Security and Medicare as "entitlements." They are not entitilements "
They are entitlements and you have not paid in to medicare enough to cover the cost of your health care, the system is 3 to 1 in the red.
Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
"Our strongest economy was in the 1950s when the upper income tax rate was 90%."
So we just need Europe's manufacturing to get blown to bits by a good war.
Why not go back to the 20s or earlier, buggy whips will make a come back?
dougs wrote:
"Please, your guests must stop referring to Social Security and Medicare as "entitlements." They are not entitilements - I have been paying for them my entire life."
Exactly, dougs. You paid in your entire (working) life. That's why you're "entitled" to them. Hence the term "entitlement". See?
"Entitlement" is not a four-letter word.
Yes, we are in a "global economy" and we don't protect our national interests because the largest corporations make more money by shipping our technology and production and jobs overseas.
We used to have laws protecting our economy - right wingers sneeringly called them "protectionist laws."
What kind of patriot sneers at laws protecting our economy so that the 1% can get richer while the rest of us struggle?
I am frustrated with the perspective that the wealthy are the "job creators". That perspective sounds nice but it isn't fully accurate. People who buy products, create jobs. No investor "creates" a job so they can employ someone. They do it because someone will buy the product. Most investors I know would be fine replacing an employee with a machine that does the work. The real job creators in this country are those that buy goods and services. When we have this historical pooling of american assets at the top, we kill jobs because the money isn't being spent to create jobs. More people having more money create jobs. Quick analogy. Everyone has played Monopoly. The game is over when the assets pool to one person. The only thing that keeps the game going for some time is the passing of "Go" and the redistribution of some of the wealth.
I just want to comment on a recent remark of one of your panelists. I found it so telling in the way we are viewing this entire debate. He referred to the "winners and losers" in society - obviously talking about those who have a great deal of money and those who don't. Please understand, the middle class in America - at least it used to be - is privileged to live in this country. Privileged, and we know it - or knew it. I don't think members of the middle class think of themselves as "losers" to be able to buy a home, educated their children, care for their health and save for retirement.
Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to the balanced budget. "We can't balance the budget (in __ years) it will wreck the economy!)"
When he did balance the budget he continued to increase spending on social programs and cut defense by greater amounts.
Reality is that when America is attacked defense spending will increase out of proportion because we have to catch up for inadequate preparation after the deep tax cuts.
Enemies are much more prone to attack us when we appear to have weakened.
Could we please just simplify the tax code? If Timothy G can't get his taxes right, how can we?
Please address the fact that, as one of your guests stated regarding monies held outside of U.S. "...it's perfectly legal". This seems to me the basic problem. Our laws that allow the wealthy to avoid their fair share. Gee, I wonder who's behind these laws getting introduced and passed.
How come you don't have some really progressive economists to answer these clowns from the Cato Institute like Robert Reich or Paul Krugman? Then we'd hear a real debate on the economy and taxes.