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.
These people have gotten tax cuts for almost 10 years, did they create jobs, no they sent them out of the country to get deeper tax cuts on the exportation of American jobs.
It appears the more they have, the more they want. I, a single man in my 50's end up paying higher taxes every year. Where's my tax break?
Private and public partnerships? I don't need a private company handling my water usage and billing. Certain things need to be controlled by the government. This is the same old battle cry from private interests. They want a steady revenue stream and the tax payer is the source. Enough already! Private enterprise should remain with the private sector.
Please look at the FairTax!! If everyone had to pay a tax on each dollar spent no one could get away with Not paying! And, those with money who spend more would pay more by default!! There are built-in reductions for those who don't make enough money!! It would also end the pandering for votes by promising benefits paid for by our tax dollars!!
Please do a follow up and get Krugman to join the conversation with any of these Cato people.
Wow, the envy is really coming out today. For the vast majority of the rich, I don't begrudge their wealth.
As usual, David was the voice of reason.
Krugman is a joke and gets to bloviate everyday in the NYT.
jlynwood wrote: "These people have gotten tax cuts for almost 10 years, did they create jobs, no they sent them out of the country to get deeper tax cuts on the exportation of American jobs"
If you use the same measure that Obama uses that things would have been so much worse if we did not do the stimulus, Why can't we say things would have been worse in 2008 without the "Bush tax cuts"
I think a key difference to consider between the top 1% and everyone else is what they have left after paying their respective taxes. What kind of a "living" wage is it - with "living" in quotes because it really means very different things between the different classes. For the lowest income groups, it means surviving at the most basic level, i.e. groceries, keeping a roof over your head, etc. For what used to be the middle/lower middle income groups, it means college tuition, eldercare, large and unexpected medical expenses, etc. For the wealthier it starts to mean things like vacations, and luxury items. When we compare these different standarrds for "living" in our country - we need to apply a moral lens that goes beyond capitalist arguments such as "I worked hard for this; don't punish me for it" (which isn't even always the case) and hold up these different classes to the moral foundation of the country which enables all of us: Are we forming a more perfect union? Are we insuring domestic tranquility? Are we promoting general Welfare? I say we are moving in away from our Founding Fathers' vision.
$1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion Dollars) in student debt and employment prospects so poor few students are able to keep up with the interest on them, but Obama still commences flowery speeches "A Country as RICH as America ..." in which he continues to try to justify huge expenditures to solve many of the World's problems, too many by importing them.
We used to be rich, but there are many facts today that put the lie to that assumption. Unfunded pension liabilities, student debt, foreclosures, high unemployment, horrible environmental practices and the budget deficit to name a few well known.
When you are stuck in a hole the first thing to do is quit digging.
We still have capacity to recover, and most have the energy and determination to work through these issues, but we have to have sober understanding of where we are.
Did Chris Edwards really add anything that you could believe to this discussion?
How about Dean Baker, someone who has a better handle on these matters?
""Entitlement" is not a four-letter word."
You're right - I just mutter four letter words when "they" start talking about cutting my "entitlement." :-)
How can Diane ask a responsible thinker like Alan Blinder to share time with a notorious fabulist like Chris Edwards?
Presenting a Cato hack as having expertise on anything other than LYING is an insult to all intelligent people.
When will Diane abandon her ridiculous pursuit of "fairness" -- when the guests she selects mock the very notion of it!
The Cato jokers are laughing at you, Diane. They are breathless with laughter over your being such a fool as to continue providing them a credible platform, while they butcher you (and the facts) from the rear.
"garbage"? Before insulting do some research. Defense remains the largest single chunk (expense) of our government's annual budget (see link below-one of countless others). I'll accept your apology anytime.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
As a non-beltway economist, and a major fan of Prof. Blinder, I strongly advocate that we restart this discussion about taxation with a close look at the 1950s tax policies that enabled the United States to have an era of increasing prosperity that included a great expansion of the middle class, sending men to the moon, and building an interstate highway system.
How did we do this? We had a strongly progressive income tax system during this entire era. So far I have not heard any reason as to why we should not go back to the tax system we had during the era of Pres. Eisenhower, when the marginal tax rate (top tax bracket) was 92%.
ecgberht wrote:
'So what, at death, all your assets revert to the state? Please explain to me the moral principle behind the idea that at death, the state has a right to take what I have gained through hard work and frugality.'
You're talking about an estate tax. Coming from England, those who founded this country advocated estate taxes to prevent an ever higher concentration of wealth over time in the hands of the few. In other words, they didn't want the US to end up like England, with everything owned and controlled by the 'landed gentry,' and the majority of people broke and enslaved by them. Read Kevin Phillips' book on the Bush Dynasty; very good explanation of this in the early chapters of the book.
john hutchinson wrote: "garbage"? Before insulting do some research. Defense remains the largest single chunk (expense) of our government's annual budget"
Garbage! even using your information it's not the largest expenditure, it's third.
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"
This is a garbage statement, saying that the two social welfare programs that are larger in cost and that they "pale in comparison" is a garbage statement.
hainc wrote:
'Wow, the envy is really coming out today.'
This is the best you can do-- the latest throwaway line from Fox-y? Please, come back when you actually have something to ADD to the discussion, or go spout off on Yahoo.
john hutchinson wrote:
""garbage"? Before insulting do some research. Defense remains the largest single chunk (expense) of our government's annual budget (see link below-one of countless others). I'll accept your apology anytime. "
Right back atcha, slick. By your own chart, social programs (SS, MC, and "safety net" programs) make up 54% of the budget. That DWARFS Defense.
Arkus wrote:
This is a garbage statement, saying that the two social welfare programs that are larger in cost and that they "pale in comparison" is a garbage statement.
Which 'two social welfare programs' are you referring to?
Carolharlow wrote:
"How did we do this? We had a strongly progressive income tax system during this entire era. So far I have not heard any reason as to why we should not go back to the tax system we had during the era of Pres. Eisenhower, when the marginal tax rate (top tax bracket) was 92%."
I'll give you two:
Because, 1) nobody actually PAID that rate, and b) it only applied to incomes of 400K and over which was a veritable HANDFUL of taxpayers then.
avintageyear wrote: Which 'two social welfare programs' are you referring to?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
avintageyear wrote:
"You're talking about an estate tax."
You bet your sweet bippie I am. What you offer is not a MORAL argument, it is a PRACTICAL argument. I know all about the HISTORY of the estate tax. I want to hear the MORAL argument that justifies an estate tax in a free society.
Let's try again.
Please explain to me the moral principle behind the idea that at death, the state has a right to take what I have gained through hard work and frugality.
I was listening to the programme in the car.
In response to a caller's excellent question, one of the quests (I am sorry, I do not know which it was) explained quite eloquently the top income earners create so much work for the economy that it was wrong to levy a high rate of tax. Also, as the US income tax is based on global income, there is no benefit in there moving wealth off shore.
Having finished, what quite plausable argument he went on to state in today's global economy, where capital markets are fluid it is important not to drive capital off shore by imposing high income taxes.
….I believe there is a certain contradiction there. Would somebody, perhaps the guest in question be able to clarify or explain this for me?
Thank you.
America is in decline in the 21st c. because we have not been responsible to elect the best and brightest moral human-beings amoung us.
Our problems with greed and imperialism has reached epic proportion(once again) in the last 10 years since the Republican Party "completely" lost its handle on sober-minded governance: first with the Neoconservative movement and their expensive and failed war policy--and now the Tea Party's outright radical assault on the social fabric of a highly diverse mostly urban and technological society, including, as well, their hostility towards common citizen safety nets.
The Democrates, as well, have fallen victim to the great seductions of massive wealth and greed for power.
They have acted derilect in their duty to study and explain to the American people what the differences between party policies mean to the country and its relations with other nations.
They have been dilatory to correct longstanding failed and inequitable domestic and foreign policy which implicates them as victimizers of Americans alongside their Republican counterparts.
So very sad that we are now lining up behind our favorite party to recycle another generation of inept leadership. The brightest and most moral people are not the ones we elect...haven't been for a long time!!!
I regret that we will need a crisis greater than we've ever seen to correct ship and this too is a pattern of our country
dhr75 wrote:
"....
We used to be rich, but there are many facts today that put the lie to that assumption. Unfunded pension liabilities, student debt, foreclosures, high unemployment, horrible environmental practices and the budget deficit to name a few well known.
When you are stuck in a hole the first thing to do is quit digging.
We still have capacity to recover, and most have the energy and determination to work through these issues, but we have to have sober understanding of where we are."
As eloquent a statement of the problem I have seen, dhr75. You get the gold star for "post of the day" in my book.
Stan Munson wrote:
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.
Well said, thumbs up!
as of june 2012 the washington post reports that military/defense spending continues to lead in our budget's discretionary spending.
ecgberht wrote:
What you offer is not a MORAL argument, it is a PRACTICAL argument. I know all about the HISTORY of the estate tax. I want to hear the MORAL argument that justifies an estate tax in a free society.
ecg: you can want a moral argument or any other kind of argument all day long, that's your business. What's fascinating to me is that you seem to think you are entitled to one.
I am so disappointed in Diane, a caller asks about net worth compared to tax rates and the guest truned it back to tax rates vearses income as they always do, when measure by what they have the 1% pay far too low a tax rate and no one [points that out, when a caller did Diane let him down
@ Arkus Duntov Please refer to the CBO (the budget office of the Congress) regarding the cost of the Affordable Care Act. In point of fact, this legislation will lower not raise federal government spending. By repealing the ACA Congress would therefore actually be increasing the deficit dramatically as well as increasing how much tax payers will be on the hook for non-insured emergency room patients. These facts are from a non-partisan congressional office and not from a talking head...
Just a couple of points here.
1. President Obama is not proposing a tax cut for 98% of Americans, he is proposing a tax cut for everyone, he is just capping it. Those making $250K or more will still receive a tax cut on their first $250K.
2. If the limit of $250K is based on taxable income, then we are not talking about people who earn $250K per year, but actually make over $300K or more. If someone's taxable income is $250K, then you have to add back their exemptions, deductions (Sch A), and retirement deductions (401K or SEP) to get their total annual income. For example, our family makes nearly $200K, but we are only taxed on about $130K after our 401K deductions, home mortgage deduction, and our state taxes.