Let's look at a little history, the 1980's, using an irrefutable source:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Table 1.1 shows total receipts in 1980 of $517 billion. By 1989, after Reagan's tax cuts, it had almost doubled to $991 billion.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Table 1.1 shows total receipts in 1980 of $517 billion. By 1989, after Reagan's tax cuts, it had almost doubled to $991 billion.
24
This article is false and the IRS records are available for all to view. Reagan's cut massively increased intake and compliance. It also brought money back to the US from tax havens. Finally, it helped to expand the economy for everyone. These increase in revenue were offset by increases in entitlement programs which were then locked to COLA which has caused them to spiral out of control, especially when the economy contracted. J.D. LL.M Tax
24
The only acceptable income tax rate is 0%. If you want the government to spend money on goodies, then we need the FairTax.s
5
Let's look at a little history, the 1980's, using an irrefutable source:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Table 1.1 shows total receipts in 1980 of $517 billion. By 1989, after Reagan's tax cuts, it had almost doubled to $991 billion.
BTW, outlays during that time went from $591 B to $1,144 B. So the oft repeated claim that Reagan's tax cuts gave us the large deficits during that period ignores the increases in spending, driven by a Democrat majority in Congress for six of the eight years.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Table 1.1 shows total receipts in 1980 of $517 billion. By 1989, after Reagan's tax cuts, it had almost doubled to $991 billion.
BTW, outlays during that time went from $591 B to $1,144 B. So the oft repeated claim that Reagan's tax cuts gave us the large deficits during that period ignores the increases in spending, driven by a Democrat majority in Congress for six of the eight years.
18
Time for flat tax is here whether it's 15% or 20%.
13
Because this is the TIMES comment board, there are likely many readers of the board who deny and reject the GOP accusation of bias in the media.
Even though they read an article, like this one, that proves it.
By various accounts, Bernie Sanders has proposed new spending that adds up to about a trillion dollars. His proposals to pay for it add up to about 10% of that total, 100B. Any mention of THAT?
Of course not. Megan McArdle, always the realist, put it rather succinctly after the debate the other day:
"Republicans complain that the Democrats run as the party of free stuff without paying for it. They’re right; Democrats are selling the fantasy of a European-style welfare state paid for entirely by taxing a handful of rich people, which is not possible. But Republicans are selling an equally impossible fantasy: of an American-style welfare state paid for by no one at all. That’s the sort of gambling that no country can afford to allow."
Even though they read an article, like this one, that proves it.
By various accounts, Bernie Sanders has proposed new spending that adds up to about a trillion dollars. His proposals to pay for it add up to about 10% of that total, 100B. Any mention of THAT?
Of course not. Megan McArdle, always the realist, put it rather succinctly after the debate the other day:
"Republicans complain that the Democrats run as the party of free stuff without paying for it. They’re right; Democrats are selling the fantasy of a European-style welfare state paid for entirely by taxing a handful of rich people, which is not possible. But Republicans are selling an equally impossible fantasy: of an American-style welfare state paid for by no one at all. That’s the sort of gambling that no country can afford to allow."
23
The editors at the NYT should spend a little time studying historical data available here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Table 1.1 shows total receipts in 1980 of $517 billion. By 1989, after Reagan's tax cuts, it had almost doubled to $991 billion.
Can you please explain?
BTW, spending during that time went from $591 B to $1,144 B. So the oft-repeated claim that Reagan's tax cuts gave us the large deficits during that period ignores the increases in spending, driven by a Democrat majority in Congress for six of the eight years.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Table 1.1 shows total receipts in 1980 of $517 billion. By 1989, after Reagan's tax cuts, it had almost doubled to $991 billion.
Can you please explain?
BTW, spending during that time went from $591 B to $1,144 B. So the oft-repeated claim that Reagan's tax cuts gave us the large deficits during that period ignores the increases in spending, driven by a Democrat majority in Congress for six of the eight years.
12
The NY Times, who has never met a government program it doesn't want to expand (except for defense), and loves Mr. Obama (who doubled the national debt) is all of a sudden concerned about fiscal responsibility?
You could confiscate all of the 1%'s wealth and income and it wouldn't come close to paying for the welfare state the NY Times longs for.
And if you're in such a hurry to raise taxes, why not double the tax on newspapers for a start?
You could confiscate all of the 1%'s wealth and income and it wouldn't come close to paying for the welfare state the NY Times longs for.
And if you're in such a hurry to raise taxes, why not double the tax on newspapers for a start?
20
How about getting away from the "us" v. "them" mentality which only breeds discontent and divides and talking about the merits of the plan, pulling out plausible solutions from all proposed plans across party lines and presenting an alternative. A much better use of your editorial space.....
26
Corporate Taxes:
How the wheels of economy turn. We should be doing these steps if we want to have full or almost full employment, and a strong Middle-class which is the insurance policy of any strong economy:
8) Make sure to leave the door open for any unintended consequences and loopholes that may arise in the future for any legislation, ie: GEs and Apples(s) of the world should not be able to use loophole to dodge their intended taxes. Correction and tweaking should be part of a good intention of the law.
9) Progressive corporate tax system; Use Percentage of Profitability (Gross Profit/Working Capital and $ amount) to determine a different rate for different brackets for taxing Corporate Profits. This is good to avoid Price gauging by Corporations such as Oil, Wall Street and Banking types, the higher the percentage of the (Gross Profit/Working Capital), the higher the tax rate.
10) Tax break for any incoming foreign Capital Investments to the US, at least for 5 years.
11) Tax any outgoing Capital Investment from the US by at least 39% (will stop unintended job outsourcing).
12) Use “Import Duties” to support specific industries in the US and fight unfair trade practices. “Free Trade” does not work; China will not let most imports in, even after implementation of all the free trade laws. Use the “Import Duties” as a tool to help any given domestic industries and unfair trade practices..
13) Multi-National Corporations should not have more than 1% “Part time workers”.
How the wheels of economy turn. We should be doing these steps if we want to have full or almost full employment, and a strong Middle-class which is the insurance policy of any strong economy:
8) Make sure to leave the door open for any unintended consequences and loopholes that may arise in the future for any legislation, ie: GEs and Apples(s) of the world should not be able to use loophole to dodge their intended taxes. Correction and tweaking should be part of a good intention of the law.
9) Progressive corporate tax system; Use Percentage of Profitability (Gross Profit/Working Capital and $ amount) to determine a different rate for different brackets for taxing Corporate Profits. This is good to avoid Price gauging by Corporations such as Oil, Wall Street and Banking types, the higher the percentage of the (Gross Profit/Working Capital), the higher the tax rate.
10) Tax break for any incoming foreign Capital Investments to the US, at least for 5 years.
11) Tax any outgoing Capital Investment from the US by at least 39% (will stop unintended job outsourcing).
12) Use “Import Duties” to support specific industries in the US and fight unfair trade practices. “Free Trade” does not work; China will not let most imports in, even after implementation of all the free trade laws. Use the “Import Duties” as a tool to help any given domestic industries and unfair trade practices..
13) Multi-National Corporations should not have more than 1% “Part time workers”.
8
Let us not forget what happened with Gov. Brownback's great tax cut experiment in Kansas. There is a lesson to be learned there.
61
All this focus on taxes .. Ignores the 'elephant' in the room
Our national health care expenditures .. $3 Trillion-plus per year
If we were to adopt a single payer program .. We can expect to save between $500 billion to $1 trillion a year .. Which could be deployed to lower taxes for those in the middle/lower income brackets .. Provide universal health care .. Medical and family leave .. And free tuition (only) to public colleges and universities .. And pay for an infrastructure targeted jobs program .. Perhaps even pay down the national debt/eliminate the annual spending deficit
So rather than looking at just federal expenditures .. GOP/DEM candidates need to look at overall spending and figure out ways to make that the most efficient process possible .. Single payer 'Medicare for all' is the place to start that conversation
Hopefully the NYTimes will help lead the conversation
Our national health care expenditures .. $3 Trillion-plus per year
If we were to adopt a single payer program .. We can expect to save between $500 billion to $1 trillion a year .. Which could be deployed to lower taxes for those in the middle/lower income brackets .. Provide universal health care .. Medical and family leave .. And free tuition (only) to public colleges and universities .. And pay for an infrastructure targeted jobs program .. Perhaps even pay down the national debt/eliminate the annual spending deficit
So rather than looking at just federal expenditures .. GOP/DEM candidates need to look at overall spending and figure out ways to make that the most efficient process possible .. Single payer 'Medicare for all' is the place to start that conversation
Hopefully the NYTimes will help lead the conversation
55
The one area that liberal progressives, especially the NYT never acknowledge and which needs MAJOR reform is the 76% spending in the budget called "Entitlements".
No, medicare is NOT an entitlement!
Democrats will pick up arms and start another civil war in their attempt to leave these numerous programs in place. Well folks we will shortly become Greece and will have to go begging on our knees for help if we keep going down the same path.
Time to impose caps on Welfare and all the other handouts, like we used to do.
Yea, I know , I can hear the crying that I'm a racist, have no compassion etc etc. But we have kept the baby on the bottle for too many year. Time to start weaning them off of it an make them become self sufficient.
Once the spigot dries up watch how fast these folks will find meaningful work.
No, medicare is NOT an entitlement!
Democrats will pick up arms and start another civil war in their attempt to leave these numerous programs in place. Well folks we will shortly become Greece and will have to go begging on our knees for help if we keep going down the same path.
Time to impose caps on Welfare and all the other handouts, like we used to do.
Yea, I know , I can hear the crying that I'm a racist, have no compassion etc etc. But we have kept the baby on the bottle for too many year. Time to start weaning them off of it an make them become self sufficient.
Once the spigot dries up watch how fast these folks will find meaningful work.
11
Say the words "Republican tax plan" and say no more. Fantasy economics is assumed.
32
God help us if a republican wins the White House. All their candidates are horrible but the 2 worst have to be Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham. I think the republicans, no matter their nominee, are headed for a severe mauling in 2016.
25
Your challenge is having any credibility criticizing a different economic approach when your guy (and his party) has performed so dismally. Perhaps we don't know what will work. But we surely know what won't.
4
Rubio can't balance his checkbook and stay above water on a Senators salary. Who in their right mind would follow this man's financial advice?
50
Since the NYT has an extreme liberal bias, it is unqualified to judge any conservative financial plan as it will denigrated no matter how good it is. Journalism requires a balance and evaluation of the positive and negative of a proposal and a fair judgement, all of which the NYT is simply not about to do.
15
I can see Hannity, Limbaugh, and Levin challenging these claims if they moderated the next debate. Yeah, right. Obfuscation and hand waving are the core of their science and hand-waving.
7
Look where the economy was after 8 years under Bush and where it is now after 7 years of Obama. Vote accordingly.
38
Tax cuts are stupid. Once you got the people paying them you never lower them. There is always something to do with the money.
1
The idea that you can have something for nothing which has been and continues to be the Republican mantra is a bankrupt ideology.
31
Republicans don't look at the NYT for tax advice, Democrats already know what this piece states. So, what is the purpose of this editorial? The only issue this paper should be concerned with is getting out the vote. Imagine this country four years from now with a corporate right winger selecting SCOTUS Justices and setting tax policy with this Congress. I suggest the Times spend some effort persuading voters to vote.
19
Just asking...why is it that the NY Times Editorial Board always wants every service to be enjoyed and consumed by all, but when it comes to paying for it:
Only "the rich must pay"?
Only "the rich must pay"?
16
America lives on spending small. When you give 100 mio $ to 20 people who have already got a big house, a plane etc., you won't get as much economic activity as from giving (or not taking from, in the form of taxes) 5$ to 20 mio people who are at the bottom end of the economic spectrum. Don't worry, money creeps up (which the big money Democratic donors understand). Maybe you get more inflation, though? Democratic delusions already abound but are more practical in nature, how any of them will raise any taxes with the House safely in Repulican hands is their secret. How any of them will keep a military that's costing us 20% of our taxes is also beyond anyone's guess. How they want to tax companies, who currently pay about whatever they feel they can afford is another such question. Those at least would be more interesting questions than the phantom gains/voodoo economics that every Republican seems to want to be prospering on. B.t.w., it never was "income inequality" (which people accept b/c meritocracy), it's old Marxist's Kapital, or "asset inequality" that drives their tax plans. That's why it's "conservative".
8
These tax plans work for billionaire donors. That's all that matters to these candidates. And watch how the media tiptoes around, lets the candidates bully them (CNBC and NBC) and fails to get a straight answer all the way up to the general election a year from now.
Those networks should wear their excommunication like a badge of honor and turn it into vociferous reporting.
Those networks should wear their excommunication like a badge of honor and turn it into vociferous reporting.
7
If your goal is to get rid of the federal government, then you cut taxes until the government can't function anymore.
Simple. Stupid. Scary.
Simple. Stupid. Scary.
7
There you go again! You mainstream news media are always using "facts". You keep ignoring the fundamental laws of voodoo economics. This bias is awful.
It is the well established intuition of conservative economists that dynamically scoring fiscal bills shows incontrovertibly that cutting the taxes of so-called rich people generates so much financial activity that the cuts pay for themselves. Sure, you say 5 minus 1 equals 4, but when you use dynamic scoring, 5 minus 1 equals 7. Take that!
It is the well established intuition of conservative economists that dynamically scoring fiscal bills shows incontrovertibly that cutting the taxes of so-called rich people generates so much financial activity that the cuts pay for themselves. Sure, you say 5 minus 1 equals 4, but when you use dynamic scoring, 5 minus 1 equals 7. Take that!
14
You write that the only way the Republican tax plans make any sense is if they also plan to drastically cut (or more to the point eliminate) Medicare and Social Security. But that, of course, is the entire point, isn't it?
During the debates, Marco Rubio said that his mother relies on these programs and he would _never_ do anything that would hurt his mother. He would, however, cut these programs for those who come after her.
This is the heart of all Republican tax plans: We got ours; the rest of you are now on your own.
During the debates, Marco Rubio said that his mother relies on these programs and he would _never_ do anything that would hurt his mother. He would, however, cut these programs for those who come after her.
This is the heart of all Republican tax plans: We got ours; the rest of you are now on your own.
18
Agreed: the GOP candidates are snake oil salesmen duping reality denyers. But don't Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders plans for large new programs such as free community college education flounder on the same reality? And if you look at this reality hard are not our wars_supported by both parties--its primary force?
2
Corporate Taxes:
This is how the wheels of economy turn. We should be doing these steps if we want to have full or almost full employment, and a strong Middle-class which is the insurance policy of any strong economy:
1) Actual living base pay for the full time employees in these Multi-National Corporations.
2) Full Medical Insurance payable by employer for all full time employees.
3) Full Union ‘rights’ for all employees.
4) Profit sharing plans for all Corporations (at least 10% of profit through stocks or cash) to all employees, no other bonuses for top echelons of the corp.
5) Use a FLAT rate of at least (say) 30% of “Gross Profit”. Let the corporations decide how they have to run their business regardless of the tax policies for expansions and profits.
6) International Corporations located in US should pay the difference of what they have actually paid overseas in the host country (by percentage of their ‘Gross Profit’) and the US applicable rate (say 3o%) for tax liabilities. No more parking and hiding the Profit form aboard to be taxed on arrival to the US.
7) Proportion of total tax collection should be 60% from Corporations and 40% from Individuals. Or compare the total Corporate Profit with total Personal Income and arrive at some proportional tax rate for corporations and individuals.
This is how the wheels of economy turn. We should be doing these steps if we want to have full or almost full employment, and a strong Middle-class which is the insurance policy of any strong economy:
1) Actual living base pay for the full time employees in these Multi-National Corporations.
2) Full Medical Insurance payable by employer for all full time employees.
3) Full Union ‘rights’ for all employees.
4) Profit sharing plans for all Corporations (at least 10% of profit through stocks or cash) to all employees, no other bonuses for top echelons of the corp.
5) Use a FLAT rate of at least (say) 30% of “Gross Profit”. Let the corporations decide how they have to run their business regardless of the tax policies for expansions and profits.
6) International Corporations located in US should pay the difference of what they have actually paid overseas in the host country (by percentage of their ‘Gross Profit’) and the US applicable rate (say 3o%) for tax liabilities. No more parking and hiding the Profit form aboard to be taxed on arrival to the US.
7) Proportion of total tax collection should be 60% from Corporations and 40% from Individuals. Or compare the total Corporate Profit with total Personal Income and arrive at some proportional tax rate for corporations and individuals.
4
The republicans talk from two side of their mouth. They want a balanced budget, and get rid of the debt, while at the same time lower taxes to 'buy votes'.
6
One way to make these tax cut work: cut military spending.
15
Fact-checking will easily prove that the American people and their presidential candidates are getting stupider and dumber by the decade.
7
The tax plans should be the the "Kansian Plans", plans that mimic Kansas. Sure they don't work, but they will allow the rich a 2-10 years of lower taxes and maybe more. This has been going on for 35 years since Reagan started the decline of a full society. It is time for Democrats to start the "Canadian Plans", borrow money to fix the society, single payor health care, a better immigration plan, fairness across the board, build a better society, etc......
16
None of the Republican candidates deserve a vote. They perseverate on "Obama's failed policies" whilst failing to acknowledge the disastrous policies of their own George Bush. They offer the same trickle down economics; Trump will bring jobs back to America but doesn't say how. Specifics are few and far between, and when they're offered, are unrealistic. These guys are auditioning for a role none of them is qualified to fill.
22
To be part of today's GOP, one has to willfully decide that history has no lessons to guide our behavior today. Conservatism is dead---the GOP killed it.
13
Given what the Democratic governor of this state proposed this year to “balance” the budget and promote a “fertile” environment for middle class job creation, I’m done soapboxing for the middle class. What was the proposal? Governor Markell proposed eliminating all or half of the school tax abatement for seniors. That’s $250 to $500 per senior. Statically, most senior’s income qualify them to be at the low end of the middle class, if in it at all. When I moved to Delaware 42 years ago, we had one of the highest state income tax rates in the country, now one of the lowest, we have no sales tax, we business incorporation largess, we have state employees with golden healthcare benefits and working that could pay more; plenty of room for revenue. In a country where the civic responsibility of paying taxes seems to be passé and in a nation where total revenue from tax as part of the GDP ranks 64th in the world, someone else can foot that bill before I have to dim the lights or turn off the heat for two and a half months.
3
Amusing opinion, considering the democrats' tax program which is based uniquely on increasing the debt.
3
"Why the Republican Tax Plans Won’t Work"
What? Just because they never have worked?
It's a real testament to the political incompetence and impotence of the Democrats, as well as to the media's eager willingness to be used by conservatives as doormats and amplified delivery systems for transparent conservative schemes to reverse Robin Hood America and the world, that we are still -- STILL, at least a generation after we've known better -- having to listen to a Republican party that has zero fear that proposing yet more tax cuts for the wealthy and privileged is good for the economy and society that all have to live in.
But hey, if you're a Republican, it must be awfully fun to be able to slobber stupid, self-serving nonsense on the public and not have to fear either the political opposition nor the organ of society that supposed to inform the public.
What? Just because they never have worked?
It's a real testament to the political incompetence and impotence of the Democrats, as well as to the media's eager willingness to be used by conservatives as doormats and amplified delivery systems for transparent conservative schemes to reverse Robin Hood America and the world, that we are still -- STILL, at least a generation after we've known better -- having to listen to a Republican party that has zero fear that proposing yet more tax cuts for the wealthy and privileged is good for the economy and society that all have to live in.
But hey, if you're a Republican, it must be awfully fun to be able to slobber stupid, self-serving nonsense on the public and not have to fear either the political opposition nor the organ of society that supposed to inform the public.
11
Abolishing the estate tax is not only a gift to the rich that will have to be paid for by hurting those who are not rich, but also a move to establish a hereditary aristocracy. The hypocrites who talk about American values won't admit that wanting a country *without* a hereditary aristocracy was one of them.
11
At this point, none of these guys is really running for president. They're running for poll numbers which equal campaign contributions from the Big Money. And what does the Big Money want to hear? Lower taxes on the Big Money!! With Fox News whipping its mindless audience into a belief that lower taxes on Big Money will somehow fulfill their dreams of "less government", the polls favor the most convincing anti-tax bloviator. It's a money game at this point. Look at Rubio, he needs the candidacy just so he can pay his bills!
12
I , for one, am stunned that none of these folks has mentioned defense spending. Not. Let's talk about real money. 55-80 $Bn for a new stealth bomber. Really? The B2 at $1Bn a piece isn't good enough.
Imagine. Imagine that money spent on health research, education or job training. Imagine.
Imagine. Imagine that money spent on health research, education or job training. Imagine.
13
Of course all of the Democratic spending plans make perfect sense and won't add to the budget deficit either.
3
This whole tax cut thing is a symptom of the disease that plagues our elected representatives.
It's called bribery and the virus that causes it is called GREED.
It's very simple and can be cured by removing the affected lawmakers from society.
It's called bribery and the virus that causes it is called GREED.
It's very simple and can be cured by removing the affected lawmakers from society.
9
The Republicans must not be allowed to refer to their tax proposals as "reform". What they are is "devolution". So much so they should be required to wear throwback football jerseys (like the ones worn by Ronald Reagan when he portrayed George Gipp) so they would look as ridiculous as they sound.
3
Here is the key line that shows how out of touch the NY Times Editorial Board is:
"In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even, per capita, with inflation and population growth."
If any of my managers made such a comment, I would conclude they did not understand business and finance. The managers of government should understand that as an enterprise grows, you are supposed to get more efficient.
Our goal should not be to keep federal spending even per capita. Talk about knee-jerk liberalism. Just keep feeding the monster, he's hungry.
I disagree with these overly-simplistic analyses which are based on the premise that Democrats are good, and Republicans are bad. The NY Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for President since 1956. We know where you stand, and we don't even know who the contest will be between.
"In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even, per capita, with inflation and population growth."
If any of my managers made such a comment, I would conclude they did not understand business and finance. The managers of government should understand that as an enterprise grows, you are supposed to get more efficient.
Our goal should not be to keep federal spending even per capita. Talk about knee-jerk liberalism. Just keep feeding the monster, he's hungry.
I disagree with these overly-simplistic analyses which are based on the premise that Democrats are good, and Republicans are bad. The NY Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for President since 1956. We know where you stand, and we don't even know who the contest will be between.
5
Republican economic philosophy has proven, time and again, to be an utter disaster with lasting bad effects on jobs, the economy and on the vanishing middle class. Why anyone would entertain more of the same nonsense is beyond me. This isn't about politics; it's the verifiable record of the business page.
8
Cut defense 10% - 20% or start billing Europe and others for providing their defense. We've been supporting them for a century. WWI, WWII, Marshal Plan, and cold war. And even today they spend next to nothing on defense because we spend so much. Easy to afford lots of butter (high speed rail, socialized medicine, no tuition high ed, etc) when the US taxpayer is footing the bill for your guns. That's why Europeans love socialism. They're always on the receiving end.
6
What the vaunted Editorial Board misses, as they usually do, is that by the reduction of the loopholes that allow all but the middle class to avoid paying taxes, revenues from the tax program will remain at least the same or increase.
There is no excuse for the middle-class tax payer to assume ALL of the burden of funding the giveaways that our tax code encourages.
There is no excuse for the middle-class tax payer to assume ALL of the burden of funding the giveaways that our tax code encourages.
3
The current system benefits those with the political mussel to carve out an exemption for themselves and do not pay the official rate or none at all (any foundation that can be judged to be charitable). It is time to scrap this system. A flat rate or retail consumption tax at a rate which funds the Federal Government.
2
I wish that every time Republicans say 'tax cut', the phrase 'raise the deficit' would appear automatically. And when they say 'cut spending,' the trailer should read 'but actually Republicans don't cut spending it's just a lie.' They make speeches about cutting spending then go home and spread the pork.
Amongst the posturing and speech making, facts can be helpful. The economy grows when the middle class has lots of money to spend. Our economy is driven by middle class spending. Under Democratic administrations the economy grows and the deficit goes down. The economy does best when the rich are heavily taxed. Trickle down is a fantasy.
Amongst the posturing and speech making, facts can be helpful. The economy grows when the middle class has lots of money to spend. Our economy is driven by middle class spending. Under Democratic administrations the economy grows and the deficit goes down. The economy does best when the rich are heavily taxed. Trickle down is a fantasy.
16
Any objective person driving through the rural South and West can see the devastating effects of Republican low tax policies. You won't see the people who benefit: they're off on their multiple properties or vacationing elsewhere while those left behind scramble to find job, just about anything to pay the rent or the mortgage and put food on the table. It breaks my heart.
4
Coming from the NYC white collar upper middle class perspective: I'm afraid that Hillary and the Democrats define rich as making $200k a year, a figure that frankly is way too low to talk about enjoying an unfairly low tax burden--checking an online paycheck calculator, a NYC resident making $200k pays almost exactly $80k in income and payroll taxes, a 40% effective tax rate.
That is in addition to sales tax which tacks on another 8.75% of spending, property taxes you either pay directly or bear via renting, the double tax imposed on corporate stock earnings in your investments, and if you are lucky enough, any estate tax you pay when you die. And airline taxes, hotel taxes, etc. etc. I'm sure I pay about 50% of our income in taxes and I'm not some globe trotting capitalist.
So I think it's completely legitimate to think taxes are too high. And that there isn't a lot of room for massive increases to fund the socialist policies of Bernie Sanders. Sure, we could tax the ultra-wealthy--why not--but instead of spending that money on entitlements I think it should fund middle class tax cuts (and yes even upper middle class people making $200k+ a year in high COL areas) should get a cut.
That is in addition to sales tax which tacks on another 8.75% of spending, property taxes you either pay directly or bear via renting, the double tax imposed on corporate stock earnings in your investments, and if you are lucky enough, any estate tax you pay when you die. And airline taxes, hotel taxes, etc. etc. I'm sure I pay about 50% of our income in taxes and I'm not some globe trotting capitalist.
So I think it's completely legitimate to think taxes are too high. And that there isn't a lot of room for massive increases to fund the socialist policies of Bernie Sanders. Sure, we could tax the ultra-wealthy--why not--but instead of spending that money on entitlements I think it should fund middle class tax cuts (and yes even upper middle class people making $200k+ a year in high COL areas) should get a cut.
13
There is a kind of inconvenient truth that explains why conservatives think the way they do that nobody seems to grasp or are willing to talk about. Cutting taxes is not based on rational thinking as the article correctly states, but irrational fear. We were all born with fear in our DNA from long ago. It was inherited, is on a continuum - everybody has a different amount - and most importantly it is sub-conscious, we aren't even aware how it affects our thinking. And the more fear, the further right on the political spectrum. The constant desire to cut taxes is not an "ideology" at all, but a response to a symptom of paranoia which is the sense that everyone is out to get you - especially government. It should be obvious.
17
It's easy for those who pay virtually no taxes to be in favor of increasing the tax burden of those who do. At some point the well is going to run dry and we'll be forced to govern within our means. I don't know if a flat tax is the ultimate answer, but it seems to be a logical starting point in regaining parity in our tax code.
1
Partisan as usual. I guess the NY times believes in partial truths, but what I heard, and firmly believe is that it's not the tax rate, but the tax code that needs overhaul. And dems are lying if they don't drive that home.
Everyone should pay some federal tax. There is no need for higher tax rate for the 'rich' - we need to remove loopholes where even a 90% rate will never be paid. Tax revenue was very low when rates where that high decades ago.
And what's this about needing a 40% increase in tax revenue to cover spending comittments ? Who commits spending withou the cash???
Everyone should pay some federal tax. There is no need for higher tax rate for the 'rich' - we need to remove loopholes where even a 90% rate will never be paid. Tax revenue was very low when rates where that high decades ago.
And what's this about needing a 40% increase in tax revenue to cover spending comittments ? Who commits spending withou the cash???
1
There's only one scenario where tax cuts from present, moderate levels might possibly spur economic growth: businesses lack access to expansion capital because savings from wealthy people isn't enough to meet capital demand. This hasn't been the case for decades in the US, partly because capital is now globalized and the US is seen as a safe place to invest. Interest rates on business lending are historically low, showing there's plenty of supply for expansion demand. There is no other scenario in which tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The GOP candidates are being absurd promoting voodoo economics now for a consecutive 35th year of being dead wrong, and have zero shame about it. Pathetic.
5
It should be noted that "our country's policies", specifically these policies, need to be "rolled-back" and modified, to more accurately reflect the many cultural, social and fiscal dynamics, that have changed over the decades. Almost everyone agrees that as constituted, these programs are not sustainable, even in the near future. The looming bankruptcy of these programs must be dealt with head on and now. The real threat of financial limits to these programs seems, at the very least, as workable a solution as the Democrats' solution of continually raising taxes, as if this is something creative and rational.
2
What we need is meaningful trade policy to bring jobs back. More jobs, more wages, more tax revenue. We need a VAT tax like EVERY one of our trading partners. If the cap on social security taxes is lifted, we should be lowering the overall rate so that folks currently spending everything they earn can spend more and stimulate the broader economy. Raising taxes on people making less than one million to punish concentration of wealth among CEOs and hedges fund managers making millions taxes at dividend and capital gains rate makes no sense.
2
The Republican tax plan is nothing new. So disturbing that people who have so much money don't understand the value of social capital, and the infrastructure that enables them to amass their fortunes. Meanwhile people who work hard for very modest incomes see that income subject to taxes, fines, and fees at every turn. And I don't blame just the GOP. The newly rich liberals are also fans of low taxes. And they all harp about entitlement programs. Social security, welfare, Medicare, ECT. But last I checked the 1% drive on the same highways, byways, and bridges as the rest of us. They need the services of the police, the sanitation department, and fire department too. A well educated population to enable the continued production of good and services, thereby creating more wealth. The rich are loathe to admit they depend on the working poor and middle classes for their uses and comforts, which doesn't come free or cheap.
5
I think this is true. If Social Security taxes were adjusted so more was payed by those making over the cutoff that would solve SS. All the support programs like food stamps etc could be payed for by adjusting the unfair tax way profit and gain is computed. Like Hedge funds and investments. If we had created a training and jobs initiative in 2008 with attention to our infrastructure and ways to help workers that lost jobs because congress let companies take everything abroad without being patriots and protecting out country because they were bought and paid by lobbyists. So we don't manufacturer much we would have more prosperity and purchasing in our economy. Germany helps workers. if we weren't so anxious to participate in every conflict in the world we would have the money to repair the needs like lower Manhattan and our roads and be the great country we are. Realistically you can't radically cut taxes now. An intelligent compromise plan that won't ruin the country.
3
My own feeling about this is that there are too many loop holes in our tax code that favor special interests. Moreover, the tax code is so complicated, it takes a computer program to complete a 1040 tax return. That is why a flat tax with no deductions is so appealing. It should apply to corporation (who now have First Amendment rights to fund politicians) and citizens alike. It would apply equally to capital gains and to earned income. I want to be able to fill out my tax return on the back of a post card. I realize that politicians and business believe that special considerations should be available, but I believe this approach has been abused. Since politicians are not the brightest people on the face of the earth, we should keep or tax system simple so they can understand it.
2
The question that should be raised is weather we Americans are getting our value for our tax dollars spent.
Before Medicare each family took care of their own parents until death.
Now, Medicare, in most cases, pays 80% (or more -depending upon a person's income). Just try and relate the cost of caring for one's parents including medical expenses, possible nursing care, physical therapy, and perhaps the last few years spent in a nursing home. I think many Americans would go through their life savings caring for one parent until death.
What about the defense of our nation? Is there any American that really worries about being attacked by another nation? I have slept well during my life knowing that we have the protection necessary to eliminate any worries about being attacked by another nation. It is expensive, indeed, to maintain a strong military, but it is worth every cent.
What about Social Security? I know many senior citizens who are surviving on their $12,000-$18,0000 per year Social Security check. What we paid over the course of our work lives was worth every cent. Most of us will get back much more than paid.
I don't know about other working Americans, but the Federal income taxes I have paid over the 50 work years of my life has been repaid to me many times over. I bet, if more Americans give it some thought they, too, would find that they have reaped much more from our government in value than they have paid into the system.
Before Medicare each family took care of their own parents until death.
Now, Medicare, in most cases, pays 80% (or more -depending upon a person's income). Just try and relate the cost of caring for one's parents including medical expenses, possible nursing care, physical therapy, and perhaps the last few years spent in a nursing home. I think many Americans would go through their life savings caring for one parent until death.
What about the defense of our nation? Is there any American that really worries about being attacked by another nation? I have slept well during my life knowing that we have the protection necessary to eliminate any worries about being attacked by another nation. It is expensive, indeed, to maintain a strong military, but it is worth every cent.
What about Social Security? I know many senior citizens who are surviving on their $12,000-$18,0000 per year Social Security check. What we paid over the course of our work lives was worth every cent. Most of us will get back much more than paid.
I don't know about other working Americans, but the Federal income taxes I have paid over the 50 work years of my life has been repaid to me many times over. I bet, if more Americans give it some thought they, too, would find that they have reaped much more from our government in value than they have paid into the system.
31
I believe every American would agree with the social contract to pay a certain amount of their income towards essential government services like highways, police, fire departments, schools, research & development like NIH, NSA, NSF, DEA, ICE, USGS, NOAA, DOE, HHS, HUD, DOI, DOJ, DOT, etc. Many taxpayers might complain about paying for 30 billion dollar annual NSA programs that spy on US citizens or 53.1 billion towards Homeland Security. Not to mention the billion dollar dark monies spent on overthrowing foreign governments & arming & training radicals. How many US taxpayers want their hard earned money to be directed toward inept programs like the DOE which wasted millions on interior tests which then forced local school districts to spend thousands purchasing these tests & then training teachers to administer them & resulted in many children losing their love of learning?
The extremely wealthy hire expensive tax accounts who are experts at sheltering their money including socking it away in overseas accounts. This leaves the struggling middle class to pay for wasteful federal excess like the Benghazi hearings which could have been reduced to 1 page announcement that the Libyan policy was a disaster including leaving the US embassy vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Every taxpayer should be able to opt out of supporting the US military industrial complex & redirect their payment towards life supporting programs that enhance our children's futures & allow us to thrive.
The extremely wealthy hire expensive tax accounts who are experts at sheltering their money including socking it away in overseas accounts. This leaves the struggling middle class to pay for wasteful federal excess like the Benghazi hearings which could have been reduced to 1 page announcement that the Libyan policy was a disaster including leaving the US embassy vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Every taxpayer should be able to opt out of supporting the US military industrial complex & redirect their payment towards life supporting programs that enhance our children's futures & allow us to thrive.
2
Republican tax cuts won't work.
Republican military strategies don't work.
Republican privatization of the social safety net won't work.
If Republicans are elected, more Americans will be out of work.
Voting Republican is un-American.
Republican military strategies don't work.
Republican privatization of the social safety net won't work.
If Republicans are elected, more Americans will be out of work.
Voting Republican is un-American.
7
The rationale is fund raising money! Having no ethics about the effect tax cuts would have on the deficit, no other reason makes sense.
2
Exactly; republicans are living an alternate reality devoid of expenses, just gains...by slashing taxes, and hope a divine rod will repair a badly damaged and sinking boat. Magical thinking is perfectly fine for Halloween, with its scary skeletons and all; but any serious candidate, for the presidency no less, trying to use poorly concocted potions of half-truths, ought to have his/her head examined, make sure some neurons are still doing honest work. We must worry they may be scam artists telling us lies, and hoping a misinformed public swallows their fraud long enough for them to succeed in implementing them. May I suggest, for the next debate, to minimize nonsense talk, that candidates are asked specifically about the most pressing needs of the country, and how would they try to resolve them. Further, not allow them to give a non-answer 'a la tedcruz', or give a different answer to the one asked, 'a la marcorubio'. If anyone is asked to explain their stated positions on a given subject, or lack thereof, a specific answer ought to be expected, with no chance to change the subject. Of course, this is an exercise in decency and ability to tell the truth, and recognize reality as is. And as we know, promises have been made, more often than not, to be broken ("...read my lips, no new taxes", remember?).
9
The notion that reductions in tax rates will bring about economic growth and result in net revenue increases has been Republican orthodoxy since the days of the "Laffer Curve" in the 1970's. Only problem is that this has never worked in practice. During Reagan's second term, the 1986 tax act reduced maximum income tax rates from 70% to 28%. The result? Well, the next year saw a major crash in the stock market, and a serious recession followed in 1990, which caused the elder Bush to raise taxes and lose the 1992 election. On the other hand, Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993, and this was followed by the longest economic expansion in US history. One needs to say to these Republicans, "just the facts, please."
9
"In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even, per capita, with inflation and population growth."
Is it expected that the average Anerican paycheck will grow by 40% over the next 10 years as well?! If not, federal spending will have to decrease.
Take your last paycheck, multiply your total withholding a by 1.4, deduct this from your pretax pay and let us know if your paycheck is still big enough to cover your bills?
Is it expected that the average Anerican paycheck will grow by 40% over the next 10 years as well?! If not, federal spending will have to decrease.
Take your last paycheck, multiply your total withholding a by 1.4, deduct this from your pretax pay and let us know if your paycheck is still big enough to cover your bills?
2
Not what the article says. More workers with decent wages, fewer loopholes and widespread growth needed. If all income growth is for the 1% we have a problem.
2
Republican tax plans won't work, ignoring climate change won't work, cutting government spending on everything but the military industrial complex won't work, these are three of the consistent aims of the Republican Party and their many candidates for president. What to do? Perhaps, making sure the public never hears or understands their plans until it is too late by making making future debates toothless, that might work. Conservative talkers were complaining about the debate on CNBC before it started, their candidates and the positions they hold cannot withstand scrutiny, the backlash was a setup from the get go.
13
Perhaps people wouldn't hate taxes so much if they actually got something for what they pay other than aircraft carrier battle groups, fighter planes to defend against an enemy that doesn't exist any more and a endless general officer welfare system, like say a health care system that won't bankrupt them.
11
Are you for single payer Heath insurance? Would the gun nuts and pro birthers vote for a Democrat who wants a single payer system? No.
4
You can't have a military force adequate to the defense of the nation without spending money, particularly when most people in both parties are in agreement that our military capabilities are already inadequate to the task.
But hey, in the warped logic of the liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever it is that they are calling themselves to evade having to accept the responsibility for having cut the military to levels below that of adequacy...they can throw away their cake after already having eaten all of it.
But hey, in the warped logic of the liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever it is that they are calling themselves to evade having to accept the responsibility for having cut the military to levels below that of adequacy...they can throw away their cake after already having eaten all of it.
And now the GOP candidates and their handler, Reince Priebus, want to "work the ref's", changing future debates so that these questionable tax schemes and fantasy budgets- won't be challenged by any of the moderators. I'm begging the press not to capitulate, but given that their sponsors seem to want ratings most of all, I'm not hopeful. PS. Ben Carson, it's not a "gotcha" when your bad math is questioned.
17
If the Democratic candidates were subjected to the type of disrespect and hatred that the Republicans received at the hands of the delightful moderators from CNBC, I suspect that both Hillary and Bernie would have the knives out for more than just the handsome faces that graced the moderator's bench.
1
Gilbert Cole is right. It's a means to dismantle any program that help the people, social security medicare, etc. Many people claim Cruz is s genius so he knows what he's presenting won't work. If he is really a genius (haven't seen the proof of it) he's being totally dishonest and is willing to lie to us to get what he wants. That makes him extremely dangerous. Carson is just befuddled.
15
I believe Cruz is a genius, and therefore very dangerous. Carson is somewhat worse than befuddled, but likewise very dangerous (unintentionally).
Isn't the point of the tax cuts to 'starve the beast'? Do the lower and middle class supporters of the current republican presidential candidates care whether the tax cutting proposals are practical, good for the national economy, or beneficial to them? I don't think so. For a generation now, they've been told that government is the enemy and they're tired of the eggheads from the NYTimes telling them that they're voting against their own interests.
Even if it's true.
Even if it's true.
25
The constant raising of taxes on the lower and middle classes, Lew, hasn't been that successful either in the making of government work or relieving the middle-class taxpayer from the crushing burden under which he now finds himself.
Continuing to rasie the taxes of those who can no longer afford them tends to be a viewpoint that places more of a burden on the government than it relieves.
Continuing to rasie the taxes of those who can no longer afford them tends to be a viewpoint that places more of a burden on the government than it relieves.
I would like to see an analysis of the cases where corporations are given long term tax relief for "job creation".
It always seems that the size of the relief is grossly disproportionate to the number of jobs created. More voodoo economics & good ole boy deals.
It always seems that the size of the relief is grossly disproportionate to the number of jobs created. More voodoo economics & good ole boy deals.
19
It is no more "voodoo economics" to fund "job creation" that does not create jobs than it is to fund "job training" programs that neither trains individuals for jobs to trains them for jobs for which then the trainees can actually be hired.
1
Under intense pressure to explain how she will reduce the 73,000 page U.S tax code, Carly Fiorina released her 3-page policy paper with a wink and a smile:
Page 1 For the super-rich: intentionally left blank.
Page 2 For the middle-class: sc..w 'em.
Page 3 For the entitled-class: who?
Page 1 For the super-rich: intentionally left blank.
Page 2 For the middle-class: sc..w 'em.
Page 3 For the entitled-class: who?
5
The author hasn't said anything new. The trick is convincing an ignorant public. The Republicans have won elections for forty years with snake oil promises like the empty proposals of the last debate.
10
Well, their tax plans may not be based on sound economics or reality but they play to the public by being less than 140 characters.
7
Well, it is interesting that the Democrats only have two characters: One that wants to give away the store, and one for whom the truth is a difficult concept to fathome.
...And both of those "characters" are not playing that well with The People ! ! !
...And both of those "characters" are not playing that well with The People ! ! !
"Less than 140 characters" is also a good description of the field of Republican Presidential candidates.
it is ironic that these ivy league anti elitists want to create tax changes that favor only the elite.When will the American public understand the depth ofof Republican disdain for the working folk of the USA. We are moving ever closer to an oligarchy not unlike the Banana Republics we also subsidized.
11
If tax revenues need to rise 40% over the next ten years, taxing the 'wealthy' will only work if you define 'wealthy' as making more than $100,000/year. good luck with that.
3
And even with that, there won't be enough money to accommodate all that they liberal wishes to fund.
2
It really doesn't matter if the candidates tax plans don't add up, because 1) their base couldn't care less (or know how to do the math) and 2) they really never get challenged.
Now that we're tracking the flow of campaign money as much as their campaign events, it's pretty clear these candidates are actually talking to two audiences: their voter base and their donor base. The needs and desires of each couldn't be more different: voters want candidates who will whip Putin, slap down Democrats, roll back Roe vs Wade, expand "religionism" in everyday life, and let them build gun arsenals. Those are their "touch" buttons.
Their donor base, however, is listening to the tax plans, and doing their own math. They want regulatory rollbacks, tax cuts for themselves and businesses and entitlement reform--they aren't stupid, they know there's very little left to raid to maintain their tax cuts, so love hearing "vouchers", "privatization," and "block grants to states." All are buzzwords for additional wealth transfer from the shrinking middle to them.
So, since tax policy doesn't interest GOP voters with their narrow interests (Carson is so loved in Iowa because he's a "good Christian man."), the name of the game is speak tax gobbledygook that nobody can understand with enough code words that the donors are reassured their wealth will not only be preserved--it will grow.
Now that we're tracking the flow of campaign money as much as their campaign events, it's pretty clear these candidates are actually talking to two audiences: their voter base and their donor base. The needs and desires of each couldn't be more different: voters want candidates who will whip Putin, slap down Democrats, roll back Roe vs Wade, expand "religionism" in everyday life, and let them build gun arsenals. Those are their "touch" buttons.
Their donor base, however, is listening to the tax plans, and doing their own math. They want regulatory rollbacks, tax cuts for themselves and businesses and entitlement reform--they aren't stupid, they know there's very little left to raid to maintain their tax cuts, so love hearing "vouchers", "privatization," and "block grants to states." All are buzzwords for additional wealth transfer from the shrinking middle to them.
So, since tax policy doesn't interest GOP voters with their narrow interests (Carson is so loved in Iowa because he's a "good Christian man."), the name of the game is speak tax gobbledygook that nobody can understand with enough code words that the donors are reassured their wealth will not only be preserved--it will grow.
129
I couldn't agree more on your take for the voter base, but I wonder about the donor base. As you point out, these people have some smarts. Even though they may selfishly want their fortunes to grow, they must be seeing the growing unrest in the 99%. They must be feeling the discomfort that comes with flaunting your wealth in front of people who can barely make it from day to day. Do they really want to wall themselves off and hire security forces to protect themselves, like in third world countries? How short-sighted could they really be?
4
And who, pray tell, Ms. McMurrow, are Hillary and Bernie really talking to?
Certainly neither the middle-class or the poor, that"s for sure.
Certainly neither the middle-class or the poor, that"s for sure.
1
The reality of it is this; 35 years after FDR and the New Deal, with top tier tax rates at 90% and healthy union jobs, the U.S.A. was humming along; 35 years after Reagan's voodoo economic schemes for the uber riche and the U.S.A. cannot fill her potholes.
To all those who wish to live with a small government; move to Somalia or Chad. You live in a huge country with major oceans on either side that spans a continent. There are 300 million of US living here with an economy that dwarfs every other country on earth. It can't be done small scale.
Does anyone believe these low tax billionaires don't pay their country club dues?
Well the dues to belong to this Country are going up on the billionaire class or the Country is done.
To all those who wish to live with a small government; move to Somalia or Chad. You live in a huge country with major oceans on either side that spans a continent. There are 300 million of US living here with an economy that dwarfs every other country on earth. It can't be done small scale.
Does anyone believe these low tax billionaires don't pay their country club dues?
Well the dues to belong to this Country are going up on the billionaire class or the Country is done.
25
Typical slant from the NYT. With tepid growth, no arrows in the Fed quiver and welfare state failures across the Atlantic, the Times claims more government is what is needed. Reagan's tax cuts produced a gusher of tax revenue, the fact that taxes were raised modestly was to account for the sharp increase in Cold War defense spending that helped bring down the Soviet Union.
Cut business and personal taxes, it will be stimulative.
Cut business and personal taxes, it will be stimulative.
2
Not sure who said it but as a small business owner I agree with the statement that "lower taxes don't create jobs, customers create jobs".
Also, as a small business owner I am amazed at all the tax breaks we get. I am appreciative and realize that the tax doesn't start till Im well in the black.
Also, as a small business owner I am amazed at all the tax breaks we get. I am appreciative and realize that the tax doesn't start till Im well in the black.
1
Well, while Reagan's tax increases were hardly modest, at least you admitted he made them.
How can a flat and reduced corporate tax rate do anything but help the treasury and the retirement accounts of middle income Americans?
Isn't the high end of or corporate tax rates of 39% the highest in the industrialized world? Unless a company gets a crony tax break, and many do, they pay a high rate. Lets go to a 20% flat rate and get rid of the crony tax breaks.
Even a corporation that breaks even and pays no Federal corporate tax provides jobs, the payroll taxes from those jobs, and property taxes directly or through rent.
If we can go to a flat corporate tax rate of 20% and bring jobs back that we have driven away what happens?:
1. We get the returning jobs, meaning people are able to get off the safety net and that drain on the treasury decreases. A penny saved is a penny earned.
2. We get the payroll taxes for the workers the returning company pays.
3. We get the corporate taxes at the lower rate for the returning and new companies.
4. We lose some of the tax revenues from the currently high rates, but still get the lower rate.
5. Wages rise because the demand for labor increases when jobs come back.
If you want to tax the rich, then perhaps increase individual capital gains taxes. Many middle class retirement accounts such as 401Ks are invested in companies. When you tax the company you also tax the supposedly tax free retirement account because the corporation’s growth is going to the Federal Treasury, rather than the retirement accounts value.
Isn't the high end of or corporate tax rates of 39% the highest in the industrialized world? Unless a company gets a crony tax break, and many do, they pay a high rate. Lets go to a 20% flat rate and get rid of the crony tax breaks.
Even a corporation that breaks even and pays no Federal corporate tax provides jobs, the payroll taxes from those jobs, and property taxes directly or through rent.
If we can go to a flat corporate tax rate of 20% and bring jobs back that we have driven away what happens?:
1. We get the returning jobs, meaning people are able to get off the safety net and that drain on the treasury decreases. A penny saved is a penny earned.
2. We get the payroll taxes for the workers the returning company pays.
3. We get the corporate taxes at the lower rate for the returning and new companies.
4. We lose some of the tax revenues from the currently high rates, but still get the lower rate.
5. Wages rise because the demand for labor increases when jobs come back.
If you want to tax the rich, then perhaps increase individual capital gains taxes. Many middle class retirement accounts such as 401Ks are invested in companies. When you tax the company you also tax the supposedly tax free retirement account because the corporation’s growth is going to the Federal Treasury, rather than the retirement accounts value.
3
Funny how ALL these right-wing tax plans start with slashing taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Darndest thing, you guys never seem to say anything like, "First, we need to expand the EITC..."
1
Why do people keep talking about the government budget as if it was a family budget? For some reason we think that the government has some control over population growth and collecting all income it deserves. I limited the number of children I had and I knew what my paycheck would be. Unless we go to a one or two child policy our government cannot limit population and it cannot police Cayman Island etc, bank accounts and other offshoring deceptions to collect the revenues due it. The whole trickle down economic debacle has been proven completely wrong here in America and in Britain. Today I heard a story about the Polish population in Britain where they find jobs easily because of their great educations. Corporations claim the same here. Our educational system was the best in the world for the most of our people when we followed Keynesian economics now we have an enormous poor and uneducated population so that companies believe they must import workers (another increase to population growth).
In growth, budgeting, education, employment and just about every part of society except for the rich trickle down has been a complete and utter failure. It has all but destroyed the middle class and relegated the lower classes to perpetual poverty. I pay my taxes because I am a citizen and I believe in America and the American government, Many would call me a fool, I call myself a patriot.
In growth, budgeting, education, employment and just about every part of society except for the rich trickle down has been a complete and utter failure. It has all but destroyed the middle class and relegated the lower classes to perpetual poverty. I pay my taxes because I am a citizen and I believe in America and the American government, Many would call me a fool, I call myself a patriot.
11
The times editorial board is using the same reasoning that is causing the paper to lose profit. America has to cut expenses. It can't afford at 19 trillion dollar debt.
3
Actually, NYTimes' profits are up and readership is gaining. They have made difficult but prudent cuts and shut-down poorly performing assets.
2
Considering the wealthy have exponentially more and a larger share than they've ever had, along with record corporate profits and companies sitting in the largest stockpiles of cash, I fail to see why this group needs more relief and support. They already have insane levels of wealth - if they still don't know how to invest to create new capital and new jobs in this environment, than they never will. No further relief and support is going to help.
A modest proposal for tax relief for the middle class that both parties can get behind; drop the 2nd tax bracket from 15% to 10% and the 3rd from 25% to 20% and call it a day. A household making 50k will see ~ $2,050 in tax relief. Doesn't solve all tax issues, but is a very good start.
A modest proposal for tax relief for the middle class that both parties can get behind; drop the 2nd tax bracket from 15% to 10% and the 3rd from 25% to 20% and call it a day. A household making 50k will see ~ $2,050 in tax relief. Doesn't solve all tax issues, but is a very good start.
5
1% VC 99% The tax plan set forth by the Republican hopefuls are hopeless. They're clearly rigged in favor of the 1% at the cost of raising taxes for the 99%. It's old news; but apparently not old enough to be dumped. The GOP has shown that its members sent to Congress are averse to legislation and governance. Since their objective is to "strangle the beast," that means ending government programs. Interestingly enough, the GOP hopefuls are only interested in feeding the beast--their pet beast: The 1%. No surprise there. What can I say. Hopeless is as hopeless does. Hapless is as hapless does. Mindless is as mindless does. Ring out the old! Ring in the old! Hey hey hey! The GOP's come to town!
8
The GOP obsession is to eliminate taxes for the wealthy. All else is secondary. A permanent aristocracy and a nation of pyramid builders at its feet.
4
Thirty years of GOP supply side, tax cuts for everyone policy has not worked, and in those states that have tried to fully implement it, there is disaster. Democrats need to hammer the Kansas, Wisconsin, etc. reality down the throats of the GOP at every turn.
5
Just a thought....the NY Times spends considerable ink to explain why the Republican tax plans will not work--but not an ounce of effort to explain why Bernie Sanders' spending plans are destructive--and pure fantasy. Are we to assume that the Editorial Board believes Conservative efforts to stimulate the economy will fail--but that Sander's plan to raise taxes---and spend 20 trillion on free everything is a better idea? It's just odd--that Democrat plans to improve the economy (by the way, there aren't any), are never examined here.
2
This tax cut stuff is all played out. As a retired middle class American I do not have a problem paying taxes, my problem is in how the money is spent once the feds get it. I want my money spent to provide a good, secure life for every American while the GOP wants that just for a select few.
10
Republicans don't keep pushing tax cuts because they think they'll pay for themselves. Even they know better than this.
They keep pushing them because they know that continuously reduced revenue will force the difficult choice sooner or later to either raise taxes or slash spending so much that social programs benefitting most of us will be little more than a fond memory.
In other words, they're betting on an aversion to tax increases to...dare I say it...trump a desire for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and all other programs of a decent society. Given election results in 2010 and 2014, they've made a good bet, I am sorry to say.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but not enough of us vote who would end the charade of self-financing tax cuts; at least, not with the same regularity and intensity as old, white, Republican churchgoers Until we do, we're just going to have more of the same.
They keep pushing them because they know that continuously reduced revenue will force the difficult choice sooner or later to either raise taxes or slash spending so much that social programs benefitting most of us will be little more than a fond memory.
In other words, they're betting on an aversion to tax increases to...dare I say it...trump a desire for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and all other programs of a decent society. Given election results in 2010 and 2014, they've made a good bet, I am sorry to say.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but not enough of us vote who would end the charade of self-financing tax cuts; at least, not with the same regularity and intensity as old, white, Republican churchgoers Until we do, we're just going to have more of the same.
5
I applaud the nytimes for taking up the issue of I ncome inequality. I also applaud the opinion writers. Hopefully we all can get out the vote and elect the candidate that will stand up to these rich elites and make them pay their faire share.
2
This is perfect for those who are against paying their fair share, taking benefits from others and taking comfort that they are ripping off the government. While this isn’t quite like stealing a person Social Security check, but it is in a vast broader sense, it is time to realize these villains are selling their souls to insure their wealthy donors will become wealthier.
3
Of course tax cuts will work - for Mr. Koch and his brother, Mr. Singer, etc. - why even pretend that everybody else matters to the GOP? If decades of fights against food stamps and poverty housing hadn't made their priorities abundantly clear, these candidates are spelling it out for us.
4
Zero new taxes until we hit bone cutting programs and making our public sector work force more efficient. The private sector has massively increaed efficiencies and optimized customer service, lowering costs and increasing customer satisfaction. Why can't our public sector do the same? Oh yeah, unions. Break'em.
5
How's that "more efficient" private sector healthcare industrial complex and military industrial complex working for you? Those $250 million fighter jets that don't fly have bought a lot of vacation homes in the Caribbean for the executives of those companies and many of their stockholders. My town's healthcare/hospital corporation has bought-up almost all of the medical practices, raised prices, put the doctors on salary, and awarded the CEO a reported $3 million/year salary, plus benefits to make the House of Windsor envious. Now that's the GOP's idea of "efficiency."
4
In the automated robotic economy of the purported future, everyone will have to live on earnings from ownership of means of production.
2
Of course it will work.
It will get them elected.
And likely get Trump elected.
Because as the auction continues, he will promise every American not a tax bill, but a tax check. It will be huge.
And we will buy it, and vote for him. Because he was created by God to be the jobs president, who makes everyone a billionaire.
I guess we will count our money as Trump deports 12 million people.
If it weren't funny, it would be downright tragic.
Kalidan
It will get them elected.
And likely get Trump elected.
Because as the auction continues, he will promise every American not a tax bill, but a tax check. It will be huge.
And we will buy it, and vote for him. Because he was created by God to be the jobs president, who makes everyone a billionaire.
I guess we will count our money as Trump deports 12 million people.
If it weren't funny, it would be downright tragic.
Kalidan
4
The idea the tax cuts have to pay for themselves by economic activity / jobs created is silly. The reason to cut taxes is because the money belongs to those who earned it.
P.S. The NYT love taxes so much. Let's put a high tax on newspapers.
P.S. The NYT love taxes so much. Let's put a high tax on newspapers.
3
Actually, countries are human institutions and keeping them civilized has a cost. That cost is paid as taxes. Do you want to live in a first-world country? Be a taxpayer. Thats the price and we all have to pay for it.
5
"There is no room or rationale for across-the-board tax cuts, no matter what the Republican candidates say."
Granting there certainly is no room for across-the-board cuts, there is, most unfortunately, always that old and trite fallback 'rationale', "the voters will Want! to believe it so they'll vote Republican."
Granting there certainly is no room for across-the-board cuts, there is, most unfortunately, always that old and trite fallback 'rationale', "the voters will Want! to believe it so they'll vote Republican."
4
How about we cut spending? That's what most families do when expenses are greater than income. Of course, we don't have the infinite capacity to borrow and not repay like our impoverished Uncle does. A stagnant economy and a shrinking middle class. I really didn't think that would be the end game of all that Hope and Change we bought into.
15
The middle class is shrinking because of stagnant wages. The economy is not growing because 70% of it depends on consumer spending. The middle class has no money to spend... you do the math. Whose fault is it? The obsession corporations have to maximize shareholder value and nothing else, which drives them to cut labor costs to the bone and ship jobs overseas. It's not complicated.
5
The federal government and the US economy is not like running a household. Apples and oranges. Read Paul Krugman here and he can explain why, but just look at what all the belt-tightening (cutting spending in the name of austerity) did in Europe following the 2008 crash. It has sent those countries and their economies into a downward spiral of unemployment, no consumer demand, and no government resources to help.
3
The government of a country is not a family.
Even if it were, how many families that are already on a tight budget would, in response to needing their roof fixed, their house rewired, and their furnace replaced, begin by cutting their income?
Even if it were, how many families that are already on a tight budget would, in response to needing their roof fixed, their house rewired, and their furnace replaced, begin by cutting their income?
4
Every Republican tax policy is guaranteed to lead this country eventually into class war, but they are too ignorant to understand that. If they succeed in implementing their tax policies, they had better abolish the 2nd Amendment beforehand, because a population of armed, starving and hopeless paupers is not a formula for national survival.
4
Get a hold of yourself. Obamacare raised more tax on middle class than anyone else. His policies destroyed middle class. Democrats wants to raise taxes to 50% slowly. And they're not raising it on billionaires. They had the control of both houses and presidency to raise taxes on billionaires but they didn't. They don't practice what they preach. Democrats needs their billion dollar donors on their side.
The mantra for Republicans since Reagan has gone: you can cut taxes and still have everything. It's not true, and it's not good in many cases for business. To repair and build out infrastructure, we must raise the gas tax. To keep Social Security solvent we must capture more income. To provide good health care and keep our system from collapsing, we must offer single-payer options and make the wealthy pay more for their premiums. Most of these create jobs, not by trickling down but by putting money in the hands of the many who do most of the consuming. When states have tried the Republican trick at there level, unemployment has risen or simply bankruptcy has ensued. But let not reality stand in the way of Republican dreams, because the party has become detached from empirical data and logic.
8
"Yet the candidates assert, against historical evidence, that revenue losses from tax cuts will be offset by economic growth."
The Republican plan, deficit creating tax cuts for the job creators. The wealth inequality that 40 years of these plans have caused should be ignored. The deficits created by this supply side economics that all Republican administration, since and including Reagan, have left for future generations should be ignored.
The economic growth that did not happen in any Republican administration and the increasing national debt that these deficits have created will be used by Republicans to demand cuts in Social Security and Medicare. This is the true historical evidence that Republicans and their economic voodoo has left. But let's be honest from the beginning Republicans have been against these social safety net programs. They tried to vote out Social Security and Medicare it didn't work. So this new plan of deficit creating tax cuts to the rich is a win win for them. Their rich supporters get richer and they get to attack Social programs in the name of and here' the real funny part - Fiscal Responsibility.
The Republican plan, deficit creating tax cuts for the job creators. The wealth inequality that 40 years of these plans have caused should be ignored. The deficits created by this supply side economics that all Republican administration, since and including Reagan, have left for future generations should be ignored.
The economic growth that did not happen in any Republican administration and the increasing national debt that these deficits have created will be used by Republicans to demand cuts in Social Security and Medicare. This is the true historical evidence that Republicans and their economic voodoo has left. But let's be honest from the beginning Republicans have been against these social safety net programs. They tried to vote out Social Security and Medicare it didn't work. So this new plan of deficit creating tax cuts to the rich is a win win for them. Their rich supporters get richer and they get to attack Social programs in the name of and here' the real funny part - Fiscal Responsibility.
7
A sound fiscal future requires: 1. universal health care with age-based premiums (including small ones for Medicare recipients) so as to untie US companies from the health care insurance business making them more competitive globally; 2. higher progressive taxes on incomes of $1M for singles and $1.5 for couples; 3. a $1B stimulous package focused on updating US infrastructure (water supply, electric grids, etc.) which would create jobs and bring more $s to Soc.Sec. and Medicare; 4. raising the age for SocSec retirement benefits for those under 45 from 62 to 64 and from 67 to 69; 5. allowing interest deductions for student loans; 6. the return of 3-year income averaging; 7. lower corporate tax rates sufficient to bring American companies back home; and 8. raising the cost of National Park Passes for senior citizens from a one-time $10 fee to $100 for those who would bring large self-driving RVs through the parks and $50 for others while reducing the yearly pass fee of $50 to $25 for others so as to help ensure a national will among the younger generations to maintain "America's best idea."
1
Nothing about the Republicans' tax plan is surprising. It's always about cutting taxes, followed by borrowing and spending (assuming they get elected), followed by blaming the Democracts for the deficits when the GOP is out of power. (See FactCheck.org about debt decptions: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/)
What is surprising is that the voters buy into this "free lunch" promises election after election though they should know better. No wonder the Republicans keep touting their tax cuts and voodoo economics time after time.
What is surprising is that the voters buy into this "free lunch" promises election after election though they should know better. No wonder the Republicans keep touting their tax cuts and voodoo economics time after time.
5
Tax cuts are their real agenda. They hide it behind a smokescreen of social issues to pander to the masses and generate support there, while obeying their masters. I believe I read that the Koch's, for example, are pro gay marriage and abortion, since they are really libertarians. Politics, indeed, makes strange bedfellows.
1
If moderators ask tough questions on how any of the republican candidates will balance the books, they will call foul and blame the moderators for being unfair. That means we are all supposed to trust them at face value.
5
"Why the Republican Tax Plans Won’t Work"
But in fact the plans will work because of magic and faith. Much of the republican base is all about magic and faith. They believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, they know climate change is not happening and rising sea levels are just figments of liberal imaginations. Live was created and has not evolved. So of course more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while continuing to squeeze incomes in the middle (where consumers who used to be able to buy stuff were found) will grow the economy by 4% or more annually going forward. Magic, magical thinking, it is why people in the middle class vote republican, dog whistles and magical thinking.
But in fact the plans will work because of magic and faith. Much of the republican base is all about magic and faith. They believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, they know climate change is not happening and rising sea levels are just figments of liberal imaginations. Live was created and has not evolved. So of course more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while continuing to squeeze incomes in the middle (where consumers who used to be able to buy stuff were found) will grow the economy by 4% or more annually going forward. Magic, magical thinking, it is why people in the middle class vote republican, dog whistles and magical thinking.
6
Tax cuts do work. Just ask any Republican. The issue is the definition of work. Republicans just ask their donors, does this tax cut work. And the donors reply, works for us. Sounds as if the Editorial Board confuses works for us with works for everyone.
5
As a still registered Republican, it is unbelievable that there is no wing of the party that tells the truth about taxes. That, we cannot lower taxes across the board. This never works. Whatever might have worked when tax rates were far higher (did the JFK tax rate work?) is irrelevant now.
6
The GOP base loves Fantasy and hates facts, their politicians know this so its not important at all that they provide facts. Why talk about the real economy or real science or climate change when the fantasy is so much nicer to believe? There is a lot of money to be made on feeding GOP base their fantasy world and their politicians know it.
5
Not one word about the other elephant in the room: the "war" budget.
Billion-dollar airplanes, bases with tens of thousands of dependents, more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Enough is more than enough. A great place to cut the fat.
Billion-dollar airplanes, bases with tens of thousands of dependents, more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Enough is more than enough. A great place to cut the fat.
8
As long as we're cutting the war budget, how about not voting for any candidate, Republican or Democrat who is a war hawk. Hillary Clinton is one of the most militaristic of the entire pack including a close friend to Wall St. & fossil fuel interests. If anyone believes in changes, including cutting the bloated "war" budget or NSA & Homeland, then she's not the one to vote for.
2
"All of these candidates deny fiscal reality." even with dynamic scoring. Some of the candidates did mention, "it works with dynamic scoring." at the debate. Just code for we fudged the numbers so it works. My 6 year old can cheat it still will not add up.
3
As much as the Republicans hate taxes and the IRS, our tax code will only get more complex. Simple minded people think firing 110,000 IRS workers will balance the budget and make things simple. What members of both political parties will never allow, is tax simplification that will put tax attorneys who bill $800 an hour to game the complex tax code out of business. Both parties are supported by these $800 an hour attorneys, who live a vey nice life adding zero value to society.
5
Good point and we must remember that the Congress is made up of a majority of lawyers. IMHO there should be a proportional limit (based on their numbers in the general population), placed on how many lawyers can seek elective office esp in the Federal government. They have a clearly vested interest in the laws they pass.
It doesn't matter whether the tax cuts make sense. As long as the Republicans keep saying that they are the party that rewards hard work and the Democrats are the party that wants to create a permanent underclass of "takers" -- a lot of people will vote for them.
The actual Republican policies don't have to be supported by evidence -- or in fact make any sense at all for the average American voter -- as long as they can convince voters that they are the party of personal responsibility.
There's no point trying to chip away at the Republican base with facts and reason. This is a religion for the Republican base. The only thing you can do is appeal to their emotions, because that's obviously what they're thinking with.
The actual Republican policies don't have to be supported by evidence -- or in fact make any sense at all for the average American voter -- as long as they can convince voters that they are the party of personal responsibility.
There's no point trying to chip away at the Republican base with facts and reason. This is a religion for the Republican base. The only thing you can do is appeal to their emotions, because that's obviously what they're thinking with.
8
Introduce a VAT and be done with it. Here in Europe, the revenues from VAT are about half of governments' budgets. And that's in addition to income tax rate of up to 50% in the Northern European countries.
That ought to fix the hole.
That ought to fix the hole.
Currently we are being told the US economy is running at or near full employment. If this is true, neither tax cuts nor increased government spending will stimulate growth. In fact, US monetary policy is now geared towards the implementation of a regressive 2 percent tax on all savings and income (which they call the "inflation target") in order to pay down the national debt. The focus of policy needs to change from growth to income redistribution and there is only one candidate in either party who understands that.
3
Republican economic ideology is based on falsehoods and frauds:
- that lowering taxes on the rich promotes enough private sector growth and spending to be revenue neutral (not so unless marginal tax rates are 70% or more)
- that national fiscal policy should be balanced budgets regardless of economic activity (sounds great, except that it brings recessions and depressions)
- that public investment takes away from private wealth and investment (as if public goods such as roads and national defense don't make wealth and civilization possible)
- that public expenditure for the less fortunate is immoral since it discourages work (no, charity and selfishness can't do it all)
- that taxing inheritance is theft (in reality, for every unearned dollar that is not taxed, an earned dollar must be taxed)
- that flat taxes are fair taxes (instead of asking more from those who have more)
Amazing and tragic so many people fall for these beliefs.
- that lowering taxes on the rich promotes enough private sector growth and spending to be revenue neutral (not so unless marginal tax rates are 70% or more)
- that national fiscal policy should be balanced budgets regardless of economic activity (sounds great, except that it brings recessions and depressions)
- that public investment takes away from private wealth and investment (as if public goods such as roads and national defense don't make wealth and civilization possible)
- that public expenditure for the less fortunate is immoral since it discourages work (no, charity and selfishness can't do it all)
- that taxing inheritance is theft (in reality, for every unearned dollar that is not taxed, an earned dollar must be taxed)
- that flat taxes are fair taxes (instead of asking more from those who have more)
Amazing and tragic so many people fall for these beliefs.
10
Democrats won't balance budget because their vote depends on entitlement programs. They'll be happy taxing middle class 50% to get the votes. If they wanted to raise tax on billionaires they would've done it when they had full control of the house, senate and presidency. This is all just to get the votes. It's time to balance the budget before country goes bankrupt.
1
Papers should offer simple examples of actual effects of tax and other economic proposals. Take the flat tax, sometimes called a “fair” tax because all taxpayers pay at the same rate. But a flat tax is not fair if you consider, not what is taxed, but what is left after taxes.
Imagine a person earning about $15,000, an income near the poverty line. Making ends meet is difficult, if not impossible; necessities like food, clothing, rent, and utilities take up most of that income. If the person pays a flat tax of 10 percent on that income, the person faces the same living costs with $13,500. Tough just got tougher.
Then imagine someone earning ten times more, or about $150,000. That person faces living costs with only $135,000 and has to give up a European vacation. Very tough. Or imagine someone earning a hundred times more, or about $1,500,000. That person living costs with only $1,350,000 and has to give up a limited-edition, foreign sports car. Tough.
Conservatives, after saying everyone should pay something, respond by exempting taxpayers who make less than $50,000, that is, by exempting everyone’s first $50,000 and applying the flat tax on all income above that. The theoretical problem is that they have just adopted a very simple form of a progressive income tax. Once they have abandoned their principle, they have no principled way to oppose further refinements which reflect the declining value of money as one amasses more and more of it.
K.I.S.S. helps.
Imagine a person earning about $15,000, an income near the poverty line. Making ends meet is difficult, if not impossible; necessities like food, clothing, rent, and utilities take up most of that income. If the person pays a flat tax of 10 percent on that income, the person faces the same living costs with $13,500. Tough just got tougher.
Then imagine someone earning ten times more, or about $150,000. That person faces living costs with only $135,000 and has to give up a European vacation. Very tough. Or imagine someone earning a hundred times more, or about $1,500,000. That person living costs with only $1,350,000 and has to give up a limited-edition, foreign sports car. Tough.
Conservatives, after saying everyone should pay something, respond by exempting taxpayers who make less than $50,000, that is, by exempting everyone’s first $50,000 and applying the flat tax on all income above that. The theoretical problem is that they have just adopted a very simple form of a progressive income tax. Once they have abandoned their principle, they have no principled way to oppose further refinements which reflect the declining value of money as one amasses more and more of it.
K.I.S.S. helps.
17
Demographics rules all. As the baby boomers are retiring, they are transitioning from tax payers to receivers of the ever-growing entitlements of Social Security and Medicare.
Anyone who states that they advocate "lower taxes" while also advocating "balancing the budget" is either dumb as a tree stump, not thinking or lying to the voters. That dual advocacy is simply not possible. George H.W. Bush called it "Voodoo Economics" during the 1980 Republican primary debates. He was right.
Anyone who states that they advocate "lower taxes" while also advocating "balancing the budget" is either dumb as a tree stump, not thinking or lying to the voters. That dual advocacy is simply not possible. George H.W. Bush called it "Voodoo Economics" during the 1980 Republican primary debates. He was right.
16
Actually, he was wrong. When cap gains taxes are cut, revenue increases. Look it up.
Isn't the point of tax reduction proposals precisely that they will NOT raise enough revenue, thus requiring the dismantling of the social safety net, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.? The slow, incremental process of "demonstrating" that the country can no longer afford these programs, largely due to these tax reduction schemes, is supposed to lead to our taking the "brave" but "necessary"- and "realistic"- step of phasing them out. This is the long game that those who are ideologically opposed to the programs of the New Deal and Great Society are playing. Discussion of whether the tax proposals will work or not is missing the point. They are not intended to work. They are intended to create the conditions requiring a fundamental rollback of our country's policies.
70
Every Republican tax policy is guaranteed to lead this country eventually into class war, but they are too ignorant to understand that. If they succeed in implementing their tax policies, they had better abolish the 2nd Amendment beforehand, because a nation of armed, starving paupers is not a formula for national survival.
2
It should be noted that "our country's policies", specifically these policies, need to be "rolled-back" and modified, to more accurately reflect the many cultural, social and fiscal dynamics, that have changed over the decades. Almost everyone agrees that as constituted, these programs are not sustainable, even in the near future. One way around the looming bankruptcy of these programs, is to put in place the real threat of financial limits to these programs, instead of continually raising taxes.
A sensible escape hatch for a flat tax could be to set it at whatever level fully funds the current budget – we can depend on each side to scotch attempts by the other to pad the budget. But, here’s the kicker: to the extent that it brings in more than is needed to fully fund a budget, the rate is automatically lowered for one year to a level calculated to cover projected expenditures with no surplus – but you have a floor on that of 10%, which means that if 10% generates surpluses, Congress can then start adding goodies.
Could offer big incentives to do more with less, with an ultimate objective of being able to increase spending on new priorities.
Similarly, the other tax schemes could be incremental – cut a bit; and if economic expansion DOES result, continue cutting by increments; if not, return the rates to what they last were.
But buying the circular logic that “Republican tax plans won’t work” requires that one embrace the assumption going in that cutting taxes won’t result in economic expansion that brings in as much or more taxes through greater economic activity, including greater earnings. Yet Mr. Obama’s tax INCREASE, and the trend of effectively increasing taxes by eliminating deductions and exemptions, certainly hasn’t resulted in a roaring economy – unless you consider more jobs flipping charred beef at minimum wage such a great accomplishment.
What’s quite clear is that we can’t keep increasing taxes in an economy that isn’t growing materially.
Could offer big incentives to do more with less, with an ultimate objective of being able to increase spending on new priorities.
Similarly, the other tax schemes could be incremental – cut a bit; and if economic expansion DOES result, continue cutting by increments; if not, return the rates to what they last were.
But buying the circular logic that “Republican tax plans won’t work” requires that one embrace the assumption going in that cutting taxes won’t result in economic expansion that brings in as much or more taxes through greater economic activity, including greater earnings. Yet Mr. Obama’s tax INCREASE, and the trend of effectively increasing taxes by eliminating deductions and exemptions, certainly hasn’t resulted in a roaring economy – unless you consider more jobs flipping charred beef at minimum wage such a great accomplishment.
What’s quite clear is that we can’t keep increasing taxes in an economy that isn’t growing materially.
10
Richard,
Your last sentence is fundamentally correct.
"...we can’t keep increasing taxes in an economy that isn’t growing materially."
For the segment of society whose economies are not growing materially, tax increases make no sense - not for them and not for a national economy that requires middle class spending for robust health.
However, for the segment of society whose economies are roaring and where profits have soared not just in this recovery but, taking a longer view, over 30+ years, tax increases (including closing loopholes) are entirely reasonable. The folks residing in this economic neighborhood will continue to benefit the most, even after contributing a little more to the functioning of government.
A healthy economy will be good for business, helping folks at the top as well as benefiting those on lower rungs of the ladder. An economy starved of adequate funds has dire consequences for us all.
Your last sentence is fundamentally correct.
"...we can’t keep increasing taxes in an economy that isn’t growing materially."
For the segment of society whose economies are not growing materially, tax increases make no sense - not for them and not for a national economy that requires middle class spending for robust health.
However, for the segment of society whose economies are roaring and where profits have soared not just in this recovery but, taking a longer view, over 30+ years, tax increases (including closing loopholes) are entirely reasonable. The folks residing in this economic neighborhood will continue to benefit the most, even after contributing a little more to the functioning of government.
A healthy economy will be good for business, helping folks at the top as well as benefiting those on lower rungs of the ladder. An economy starved of adequate funds has dire consequences for us all.
2
The obvious problem with your idea of adjusting a flat tax annually is that if there is never a surplus, there is never money available to pay down the national debt. The law could require that any surplus generated in a year must be used to reduce the debt.
Every word in this editorial is true beyond doubt. But it doesn’t matter.
The ridiculous Republican proposals for cutting taxes and somehow avoiding big deficits is meant only to appease the Republican base during the primary season and to capture the low-information voters in the general election, already primed to believe that Washington (read “Democrat in the White House”) is to blame for everything wrong in their lives.
The fact that these proposals make no sense is irrelevant.
The ridiculous Republican proposals for cutting taxes and somehow avoiding big deficits is meant only to appease the Republican base during the primary season and to capture the low-information voters in the general election, already primed to believe that Washington (read “Democrat in the White House”) is to blame for everything wrong in their lives.
The fact that these proposals make no sense is irrelevant.
7
What don't you get about 10 minus 3 equals 26, New York Times ?
There's nothing wrong with GOP fantasy math if you believe in the fantasy.
Just drink the supply-side strychnine math mutation tea and you can magically increase revenue by shrinking revenue and killing the non-rich.....if only you would stand in front of a full-length mirror and chant "Ronald Reagan....Ronald Reagan....Ronald Reagan...."
So what if every Republican tax plan would savage Social Security, Medicare and the nation's infrastructure while exploding the debt with massive tax revenue shortfalls.
The important thing to remember is that a rising tide lifts all yachts....and generally drowns everyone else.
0.1% Greed Over 99.9% People is such a simple concept.
Just give the rich all of the money and let everyone else drop dead -- so simple... so elegant.... so Republican.
There's nothing wrong with GOP fantasy math if you believe in the fantasy.
Just drink the supply-side strychnine math mutation tea and you can magically increase revenue by shrinking revenue and killing the non-rich.....if only you would stand in front of a full-length mirror and chant "Ronald Reagan....Ronald Reagan....Ronald Reagan...."
So what if every Republican tax plan would savage Social Security, Medicare and the nation's infrastructure while exploding the debt with massive tax revenue shortfalls.
The important thing to remember is that a rising tide lifts all yachts....and generally drowns everyone else.
0.1% Greed Over 99.9% People is such a simple concept.
Just give the rich all of the money and let everyone else drop dead -- so simple... so elegant.... so Republican.
22
All knowledgeable Republicans realized a long time ago that GOP policies would never be accepted by the majority of Americans, especially in light of changing voter demographics.
Republican politicians also realized that their only hope for survival as a viable political party was to sell their souls to the rich, buy off the unprincipled portion of the US Supreme Court (the result being Citizens United, probably the most destructive decision in all of American history - literally a threat to the survival of American democracy), enact gerrymandering, and creating all conceivable barriers to voting by Democrat constituents.
Of course, they continue with their evil "Starve the Beast" strategy, cut taxes for those who have taxable levels of income, decrease the government's revenue, and cry "We can no longer afford to help the sick, the dying, the poor and the elderly. They will just have to suffer so the wealthy can enhance their own worthy lives".
The long-lived, eternal phrase "Money talks" is not a legal basis for any fair-minded justice on any court to conclude that money is therefore "Speech that is protected by the First Amendment". Of course, that deceitful "logic" is what Republicans on the Court used to justify anonymous, unlimited political contributions - which overwhelmingly benefits Republicans. The Republicans on the Supreme Court politicized themselves by gifting an illicit advantage to GOP candidates.
Republican politicians also realized that their only hope for survival as a viable political party was to sell their souls to the rich, buy off the unprincipled portion of the US Supreme Court (the result being Citizens United, probably the most destructive decision in all of American history - literally a threat to the survival of American democracy), enact gerrymandering, and creating all conceivable barriers to voting by Democrat constituents.
Of course, they continue with their evil "Starve the Beast" strategy, cut taxes for those who have taxable levels of income, decrease the government's revenue, and cry "We can no longer afford to help the sick, the dying, the poor and the elderly. They will just have to suffer so the wealthy can enhance their own worthy lives".
The long-lived, eternal phrase "Money talks" is not a legal basis for any fair-minded justice on any court to conclude that money is therefore "Speech that is protected by the First Amendment". Of course, that deceitful "logic" is what Republicans on the Court used to justify anonymous, unlimited political contributions - which overwhelmingly benefits Republicans. The Republicans on the Supreme Court politicized themselves by gifting an illicit advantage to GOP candidates.
35
The government – and by this I mean all levels of government, federal, state and local – already takes too much money from its citizens and does not use it wisely.
1
If what you say is true, then you have a Big Beef with old people and the Military/Industrial Complex at the federal level. Those budgets dwarf the remainder discretionary components.
2
Check out Kansas ... the poster child for the efficacy of tax cuts!
10
Oh, please, as if anyone cares. What will happen, of course, is that the 0.01% will be relieved of paying ANY taxes, and the rest of us will get ours doubled to make up for it.
We are way too stupid to analyze such programs ourselves. It is simply enough that one of our great candidates "says" its a good one. No facts, no accounting, simply the person "saying" it is good makes it OK.
Enjoy your upcoming abject poverty, but then again, you are probably too stupid to know you will be poor. Who cares?
At least YOUR GUY won!
We are way too stupid to analyze such programs ourselves. It is simply enough that one of our great candidates "says" its a good one. No facts, no accounting, simply the person "saying" it is good makes it OK.
Enjoy your upcoming abject poverty, but then again, you are probably too stupid to know you will be poor. Who cares?
At least YOUR GUY won!
3
>
When you hear any GOPer say the word "tax reform" it should immediately translate to you that the rich will benefit and the rest of us will be stuck with less.
When you hear any GOPer say the word "tax reform" it should immediately translate to you that the rich will benefit and the rest of us will be stuck with less.
5
The ONE strategy that the tax-and-spend NYT Editorial Board doesnt want to hear: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SPEND LESS and stick to basic services like keeping streets clean and reducing crime.
And how do you reduce crime? Well, let's see: problems of poverty and unemployment have to be addressed, as well as health, wages, job security, education... the list actually goes on and on. And that's just one issue. You live in New York. You know there's more to government than keeping the streets clean.
We could, however, spend less on things like umpteen investigations of Benghazi and other GOP sideshows, stop costly shutdowns of the government that produce no positive results, and so on. So you're right there.
We could, however, spend less on things like umpteen investigations of Benghazi and other GOP sideshows, stop costly shutdowns of the government that produce no positive results, and so on. So you're right there.
3
And you can drive on your pothole streets, sagging bridges, suffer from an infected pancreas, etc. Do you really think the states (especially the red ones) will do anything except pay for the gas that the rich will use in their helicopters so they don't have to drive on pothole streets or sagging bridges and have their private physicians and hospitals to take care of them
Get real, Darren
Get real, Darren
2
Taxes should be used to the raise the income necessary to run the country and no more not to redistribute income or effect social policy. To be "fair" everyone should contribute. The Times editorial board has no credibility as their proposals and opinions are as ideologically driven as those of any of the Republican candidates. Simplification of the tax code would be a step forward. All should make a contribution. Any changes to SS eligibility age, payout, and contribution rate should be matched by like adjustments to Federal pension plans (skin in the game right).
2
When Democrats acknowledge reality and Republicans live in fantasy-land, as is true today, it makes no sense to dismiss Democratic plans as "ideologically driven" the same as Republican ones. Yes, all plans are ideologically driven... but the ones on the left are based on ideas that actually reflect reality. And the reality is that we need to redistribute wealth downward in order for our society to function.
3
And everyone should get a fair share of the economic pie but now all economic gains are going to the top. A graduated tax isn't redistribution it is the best mechanism to insure equitable distribution of the economic pie.
3
Helium -- do you not appreciate that SS is redistributive? It redistributes wealth to those who worked less and live longer, from those who worked more, and die younger.
Because SS taxes are only on earned income and capped at the tax on income of 140 k$/yr, the vast brunt of carrying the indigent in old age is borne by those who had modest wages, but worked all their lives.
Because SS taxes are only on earned income and capped at the tax on income of 140 k$/yr, the vast brunt of carrying the indigent in old age is borne by those who had modest wages, but worked all their lives.
None of the Democrats' tax plans will work either, but on the other hand no tax plan proposed by an election candidate will ever see the light of day. The tax plan that actually occurs will be based on what bargains can be struck in Congress after the election. Until then it's all sound and fury.
3
No one can morally claim that tax cuts for the ultra Rich should take precident over social security and Medicare. With so many seniors struggling to get by financially, the republican presidential candidates would gladly gut these two government lifelines to satisfy their lustful budgets. But, greed being what may, the billionares want ever more money and are willing to buy a republican presidency to get it. So the republican budit message going forward in essence is, take from the poor and the old, and give it to the republican party's wealthy patrons.
6
The problem causing the deficit is the decline of middle class wages. This has been happening for 40 years, as a result of automation, outsourcing, and the decline of unions. The money that would have gone to the middle class went to owners and stockholders. This money is mostly out of circulation. The rich cannot consume fast enough. A rich man cannot buy 50 automobiles per year. The money ends up in less productive investments such as owning property or speculating. Productive ventures are is less attractive because the middle class people lack money.
Cuts to Medicare and Social Security will result in the moral problem of suffering and premature death of millions. Cuts to Social Security may be ineffective because people will spend less before they retire.
Cutting and taxing to solve the deficit will be painful and may not work. Increasing the efficiency of America could help.
The American medical system is more expensive than other industrialized countries. Efficiency could save billions. The efficiency of our transportation system is declining because of bad roads and old bridges. With the current low interest rates, now is the time to borrow for road and bridge construction.
Increased government sponsored research in medicine, energy, or climate could yield huge benefits for small investment. Spending for basic research which increases human knowledge has the potential for breakthroughs which could change the lives of all of us.
Cuts to Medicare and Social Security will result in the moral problem of suffering and premature death of millions. Cuts to Social Security may be ineffective because people will spend less before they retire.
Cutting and taxing to solve the deficit will be painful and may not work. Increasing the efficiency of America could help.
The American medical system is more expensive than other industrialized countries. Efficiency could save billions. The efficiency of our transportation system is declining because of bad roads and old bridges. With the current low interest rates, now is the time to borrow for road and bridge construction.
Increased government sponsored research in medicine, energy, or climate could yield huge benefits for small investment. Spending for basic research which increases human knowledge has the potential for breakthroughs which could change the lives of all of us.
16
One example is allowing Prescription Part D to negotiate for lower drug costs just like the Vets Admin does now. The NY Times and other news outlets recently been full of reports of megamergers followed by moving headquarters of big-pharm overseas to reduce big-pharm taxes.
3
"Ben Carson offered his muddled proposal for a tax equal to 15 per cent of gross domestic product, saying it would be appealing to everyone once he 'put all the facts down.'" What a backward approach. A credible presidential candidate would put all the fact down before making such a proposal and share them with voters so that they would know the plan is based on real figures, not just dreams.
6
There are some false assertions in this opinion piece.
Tax RATES do not need to change to account for inflation and population growth. Both of these factors are self correcting in terms of raising tax revenue automatically in a generally proportional way.
However, tax rates do need to change (UP) to account for the demographic shifts of aging population, with fewer people in the workforce to pay for benefits for a ever larger retired population.
Tax RATES do not need to change to account for inflation and population growth. Both of these factors are self correcting in terms of raising tax revenue automatically in a generally proportional way.
However, tax rates do need to change (UP) to account for the demographic shifts of aging population, with fewer people in the workforce to pay for benefits for a ever larger retired population.
2
Of course! But reality does not exist in the political world. While we tolerate price increases for products and services in the private sector we refuse to accept them for government products and services. In fact some of the political nuts want to shut down the IRS and a great many voters agree and give nary a thought as to how we should pay for things.
7
I believe that the Republicans who propose thsee sorts of tax plans know that they don't and wont work and that, in the end, they are only proposing these plans because they intend to make entitlement programs so unaffordable that they will have to be cut or eliminated. This is the power of the purse strings being used to reduce the ability of the federal government to operate while making the rich richer. To the Republicans, that's a win-win. Too bad grandma will be eating cat food.
6
The Republican candidates for the presidency obviously can't even do simple math, a subject that is not based on wishful thinking but on logic.
They are snake oil salesmen trying to peddle their utterly ridiculous tax plans to a base that constantly votes against its own economic interest.
To paraphrase a former president, it is not the economy, stupid, it is the education, stupid.
They are snake oil salesmen trying to peddle their utterly ridiculous tax plans to a base that constantly votes against its own economic interest.
To paraphrase a former president, it is not the economy, stupid, it is the education, stupid.
7
The answer for our economic woes is for ALL Americans to be making a lot of money and spending a lot of money.
Until there are initiatives making it possible for every physically and mentally able person to be employed and receiving a living wage, and then spending a lot of money, we will continue to have economic problems and tax returns that do not get our bills paid.
There is plenty of work for the American people to do, but there are no serious efforts or ideas to get the work done in rebuilding America and paying workers a living wage.
Until there are initiatives making it possible for every physically and mentally able person to be employed and receiving a living wage, and then spending a lot of money, we will continue to have economic problems and tax returns that do not get our bills paid.
There is plenty of work for the American people to do, but there are no serious efforts or ideas to get the work done in rebuilding America and paying workers a living wage.
5
Thank you New York Times Editorial Board for saying what should be obvious to everyone who is not a member of the faith-based cult that used to be a legitimate political party. But don't stop at tax plans - pretty much everything the candidates were selling on that stage should be taken with a large grain of salt.
There's two questions that should be asked. Do the candidates actually believe what they're proposing would work? If yes, that should be enough to disqualify them for political office right there. They're either delusional or incompetent, or both. If no, then what are they really trying to accomplish. The front page story in the Times today about a super wealthy investor swinging millions from Bush to Rubio should tell you who they're really working for.
The second question to ask is why should anyone take anything they say at face value? From Ronald Reagan on, Republican ideas put into practice have never lived up to their promises. 30+ years of Reaganomics and neocon foreign policy have left America more unequal than ever, made the world more dangerous, and left us with failing institutions and crumbling infrastructure. We are also more divided and paranoid than ever.
It's like being trapped in a relationship with an abusive partner, one who is increasingly detached from reality, one who tells you everything going wrong is someone else's fault.
It's time to walk away.
There's two questions that should be asked. Do the candidates actually believe what they're proposing would work? If yes, that should be enough to disqualify them for political office right there. They're either delusional or incompetent, or both. If no, then what are they really trying to accomplish. The front page story in the Times today about a super wealthy investor swinging millions from Bush to Rubio should tell you who they're really working for.
The second question to ask is why should anyone take anything they say at face value? From Ronald Reagan on, Republican ideas put into practice have never lived up to their promises. 30+ years of Reaganomics and neocon foreign policy have left America more unequal than ever, made the world more dangerous, and left us with failing institutions and crumbling infrastructure. We are also more divided and paranoid than ever.
It's like being trapped in a relationship with an abusive partner, one who is increasingly detached from reality, one who tells you everything going wrong is someone else's fault.
It's time to walk away.
10
It's beyond comprehension, why a lowly wage earner in a dwindling middle class, that one time past prospered, would support a GOP candidate who preaches cutting taxes that the candidates claim would eventually create jobs and benefit them. Did we not learn from the past Reagan and Bush years how their policies caused the problems that face us now. What is it in the republican psyche that continues to follow this pipe dream.
10
The number one priority for Republican politicians is taking care of their corporate sponsors. This means always giving them tax breaks and other perks. The rest of us are somehow expected to survive by large doses of conservative ideology and bootstrap uplifting.
Only in America.
Only in America.
6
Every single economic plan, in fact, every single Republican proposal put into action over the past 35 years has failed spectacularly. Failed beyond even their opponents wildest nightmares.
Every single Democratic plan put into action in the same time period has succeed far beyond their great proponents wildest dreams. Remember the GOP warnings of utter doom in 1993 to Bill Clinton's tax and budget? The world should have ended by now with only seven planets and Pluto orbitong our sun.
The Republican party is off the rails and has crashed into a 100,000 foot deep ravine. They are the greatest danger this nation faces.
Every single Democratic plan put into action in the same time period has succeed far beyond their great proponents wildest dreams. Remember the GOP warnings of utter doom in 1993 to Bill Clinton's tax and budget? The world should have ended by now with only seven planets and Pluto orbitong our sun.
The Republican party is off the rails and has crashed into a 100,000 foot deep ravine. They are the greatest danger this nation faces.
5
I will grant the Republican candidate tax plans are both all over the dash board and lacking clarity. But in nearly all instances what they are saying is they want to simplify the code, reduce or eliminate special deductions, structure it in a way that helps the lower wage earners, and gets our fiscal house in order. So I ask the Editorial Board, how is it they are saying all those things and you essentially tell us they would all bankrupt America? Or is it simply there isn't enough detail in their plans.
Now I do think Trump's plans to cut taxes anticipating everything is going to be "great" when he's President and the economy is going to explode with 6% plus growth is irresponsible. We have to stop anticipating the best in our revenue projections and then spending up to those wishful projections.
But I also note this. If the Editorial Board is correct that revenue will need to go up 40% over the next 10 years just to keep up I will vote for the candidate who has a track record of cutting expenses, balancing budgets, and paying down debt. And none of the Democrat candidates fall into that category.
Now I do think Trump's plans to cut taxes anticipating everything is going to be "great" when he's President and the economy is going to explode with 6% plus growth is irresponsible. We have to stop anticipating the best in our revenue projections and then spending up to those wishful projections.
But I also note this. If the Editorial Board is correct that revenue will need to go up 40% over the next 10 years just to keep up I will vote for the candidate who has a track record of cutting expenses, balancing budgets, and paying down debt. And none of the Democrat candidates fall into that category.
1
You have a nation with 94 million unemployed or underemployed. Wages are not rising. Over-taxing the super-rich creates the problem that California has -- 71% of its revenues are dependent upon stock dividends from Silicone Valley billionaires. A crash in the markets dooms California.
There are some remedies however.
1. Cut corporate tax to 0% so other nations don't undercut our companies and consumers will make up the $400 billion in corp. taxes in lower cost of goods. Then corps. will bring home the $2 trillion they have stashed overseas.
2. Cut income taxes to 15% max so the super-wealthy will bring home the $20 trillion they have stashed overseas.
3. Go to China and officially invite them to bring the $3 trillion they have in US dollars to buy assets (hotels, mines, farms, etc.) in America. Money stuck on one side of the ocean benefits neither party.
4. Halt currency manipulation by foreign countries by buying up their currency when they buy billions of US dollars to make our goods more expensive than theirs; corrects a half-trillion $ trade imbalance.
Trillion dollar answers Presidential candidates aren't mentioning because they haven't a clue how to run the economy.
Recognize there is no middle class or upper class. The only hope for kids growing up today is to become a super-billionaire.
Question: is it better to run a welfare state & tax the super rich & make most people dependent on govt? If there is no incentive to get ahead then most will accept a dole.
There are some remedies however.
1. Cut corporate tax to 0% so other nations don't undercut our companies and consumers will make up the $400 billion in corp. taxes in lower cost of goods. Then corps. will bring home the $2 trillion they have stashed overseas.
2. Cut income taxes to 15% max so the super-wealthy will bring home the $20 trillion they have stashed overseas.
3. Go to China and officially invite them to bring the $3 trillion they have in US dollars to buy assets (hotels, mines, farms, etc.) in America. Money stuck on one side of the ocean benefits neither party.
4. Halt currency manipulation by foreign countries by buying up their currency when they buy billions of US dollars to make our goods more expensive than theirs; corrects a half-trillion $ trade imbalance.
Trillion dollar answers Presidential candidates aren't mentioning because they haven't a clue how to run the economy.
Recognize there is no middle class or upper class. The only hope for kids growing up today is to become a super-billionaire.
Question: is it better to run a welfare state & tax the super rich & make most people dependent on govt? If there is no incentive to get ahead then most will accept a dole.
1
The critical tone of this editorial stems from the assumption that the GOP tax plans clash with the broader goals of the party. In fact, however, Republican proposals related to the proper role of government and the best approach to restoring the American dream demonstrate precisely the opposite. Tax cuts, especially for the rich, combined with a sharp curtailment of business regulation, merge seamlessly with the overarching goal of emasculating the federal government and resurrecting the untrammeled market as the keys to American progress.
A stunted philosophy whose advocates envision a small elite interacting through a free market as the only true path to economic recovery and growth will always include the principles of low taxation and minimal government spending on social programs. Like their guru, Ayn Rand, the proponents of this outlook will always regard government as an obstacle to growth, except in its role of protecting property rights.
If, in practice, this approach benefits mainly the elite, the defect lies not in the theory but in the shortcomings of people who demand handouts instead of opportunities. Facts and experience must not interfere with trust in conservative ideology, because the only alternative is socialism.
Republican candidates can be accused of many things, but the absence of a coherent program, of which their tax proposals are an integral part, is not one of them.
A stunted philosophy whose advocates envision a small elite interacting through a free market as the only true path to economic recovery and growth will always include the principles of low taxation and minimal government spending on social programs. Like their guru, Ayn Rand, the proponents of this outlook will always regard government as an obstacle to growth, except in its role of protecting property rights.
If, in practice, this approach benefits mainly the elite, the defect lies not in the theory but in the shortcomings of people who demand handouts instead of opportunities. Facts and experience must not interfere with trust in conservative ideology, because the only alternative is socialism.
Republican candidates can be accused of many things, but the absence of a coherent program, of which their tax proposals are an integral part, is not one of them.
2
what business regulation should we drop? the one that says big business (or any business) can't pollute the water or air? how about zoning requirements? is it okay to open a gas station or a post office or a walmart next door to your house?
maybe we should do away with food inspectors? how about customs and border guards? (that's regulation)
maybe we should do away with food inspectors? how about customs and border guards? (that's regulation)
2
The premise of the article is bogus. It's not a fact that lowering Tax rates decreases tax intakes.
In fact it's quite unclear Historically because rates influence economic activity (GDP). If tax rates were one perfect there would be huge GDP but no almost no tax revenue. If instead tax rates were 90 percent you'd have little GDP and minimal tax revenue because few people will work if ninety percent of pay is collected as tax.
It's not known at what rate increasing tax rates decreases tax intake but it's ridiculous for the NYT to make the assumption we are not already higher than that rate.
In fact it's quite unclear Historically because rates influence economic activity (GDP). If tax rates were one perfect there would be huge GDP but no almost no tax revenue. If instead tax rates were 90 percent you'd have little GDP and minimal tax revenue because few people will work if ninety percent of pay is collected as tax.
It's not known at what rate increasing tax rates decreases tax intake but it's ridiculous for the NYT to make the assumption we are not already higher than that rate.
Republicans talk about lower deficits out of one side of their mouths, and tax cuts out of the other.
Under Reagan, Republicans enacted huge tax cuts for the wealthy and the deficit soared to record levels.
Under Clinton, Democrats increased taxes on the wealthy and the deficit gradually decreased until we reached a surplus.
Under Bush II, Republicans enacted huge tax cuts for the wealthy and the deficit soared to record levels.
Under Obama, taxes on the wealthy have increased and the deficit has decreased every year since 2010.
If Republicans win the next election, we can be assured of lower taxes for the wealthy and higher deficits, neither of which will be good for the US, not in the short run, nor in the long run.
Under Reagan, Republicans enacted huge tax cuts for the wealthy and the deficit soared to record levels.
Under Clinton, Democrats increased taxes on the wealthy and the deficit gradually decreased until we reached a surplus.
Under Bush II, Republicans enacted huge tax cuts for the wealthy and the deficit soared to record levels.
Under Obama, taxes on the wealthy have increased and the deficit has decreased every year since 2010.
If Republicans win the next election, we can be assured of lower taxes for the wealthy and higher deficits, neither of which will be good for the US, not in the short run, nor in the long run.
6
"Yet the candidates assert, against historical evidence, that revenue losses from tax cuts will be offset by economic growth."
The Republican candidates, like the majority of Republicans in Congress, have no interest in "historical evidence" regarding any matters that are important for the common good. Ideology is what counts, not facts and evidence, and it is ideology that prevails in their political rhetoric and is, unfortunately, accepted as reality by so many.
The Republican candidates, like the majority of Republicans in Congress, have no interest in "historical evidence" regarding any matters that are important for the common good. Ideology is what counts, not facts and evidence, and it is ideology that prevails in their political rhetoric and is, unfortunately, accepted as reality by so many.
2
The way to solve many of our economic problems is bringing manufacturing and assembly back to the United States. This is easier said than done. It is much cheaper for companies to move overseas for cheap labor and lax environmental laws that impact the cost of doing business. Companies that have done this reap tremdous profit. Politicians point to the fact that Medicare and Social Security are in danger of defaulting because fewer workers are contributing to these programs. What we fail to recognize is that the low wage earner pays less taxes to support these programs. Real economic growth comes from an expanding middle class that enjoys pay and benefits through unionized jobs. Those are the jobs that grew the economy after World War II. These unionized jobs also help workers climb then economic ladder from poverty to middle class. Unionized positions with the benefit of long term contracts are looked upon as "stable" when applying for a mortgage and car loans. It makes it easier to secure a loan and lower interest rates for the borrower. We must recognize that products are still manufactured at the basic level. The " Flat Earth" economic model may have short term econmic benefit but in the long term it hurts our economy. Owning products and production from " cradle to grave" provides our nation with economic security.
4
Closely related to tax policy is income inequality. In the last 60 years, the difference in compensation between average workers and top executives has grown from approximately 1:30 to 1:300. One reason for this - this is my idea, not the work of economists or policy wonks, as far as I know - is the 90% income tax rate that applied to top earners 60 years ago. With such high rates, top executives had no incentive to grab all the money for themselves. I am guessing that they put the money back into their businesses, or paid their workers better. So contrary to the notion that tax low taxes on high earners are good for everybody, maybe high tax rates on top executives will leave that money with no place to go but down to the rest of us. That sounds like trickle-down we can believe in.
6
While we are throwing around accusations of math impairment, let's check the math for progressive tax proposals. According to this editorial, the goal is to increase the federal tax revenue by 40% without impacting "low- or middle-income" Americans.
Using 2011 CBO household income and tax data, I did some rough calculations. For the top 1% of households, their avg before-tax income was $1,453,000 and their avg tax bill was $421,000. If we increase the top tax bracket to 50%, this would add $110,000 to their avg tax bill and bring in about $127 billion in tax revenue. But this is only 6.5% more.
How about the ever-popular 90% top tax rate? Assuming the brackets do not change, the avg 1% household tax bill would increase by $512,000 and total revenue by about $600 billion, or 30%. Now we're talking! Except...believing that these households would not restructure their income to reduce tax liability is reverse-voodoo economics. Let's discount the potential increase by half, and thus "only" 15% more revenue leaves a gap.
So why not hit the top 10% of households? Increase the top bracket rate to 50% and decrease the income threshold (has to drop to $100,000 to get the 90%-ers). The total tax revenue would go up by $323 billion, or 17%. Still not enough.
Finally, a hybrid plan, combining the above rates, would bring in $900 billion or 50% more (before discounting). But this means the "rich" getting bigger tax bills, includes all household incomes above $100,000.
Using 2011 CBO household income and tax data, I did some rough calculations. For the top 1% of households, their avg before-tax income was $1,453,000 and their avg tax bill was $421,000. If we increase the top tax bracket to 50%, this would add $110,000 to their avg tax bill and bring in about $127 billion in tax revenue. But this is only 6.5% more.
How about the ever-popular 90% top tax rate? Assuming the brackets do not change, the avg 1% household tax bill would increase by $512,000 and total revenue by about $600 billion, or 30%. Now we're talking! Except...believing that these households would not restructure their income to reduce tax liability is reverse-voodoo economics. Let's discount the potential increase by half, and thus "only" 15% more revenue leaves a gap.
So why not hit the top 10% of households? Increase the top bracket rate to 50% and decrease the income threshold (has to drop to $100,000 to get the 90%-ers). The total tax revenue would go up by $323 billion, or 17%. Still not enough.
Finally, a hybrid plan, combining the above rates, would bring in $900 billion or 50% more (before discounting). But this means the "rich" getting bigger tax bills, includes all household incomes above $100,000.
1
Your premise that revenues will need to increase to keep federal spending even, per capita, should be reconsidered. Why not start by shrinking the size and scope of government to those essential duties as called out in our constitution? If taxes must be raised to satisfy those constitutionally mandated imperatives, then responsible citizens would more willingly accept such increases. Continued growth of our government should not be the starting point.
1
In principle I agree that taxes have to go up and primarily on those that can afford the additional economic burden, the middle class, upper middle class and the rich.
What I don't see is budgets that rebuild our failing infrastructure. I did see a budget deal that was largely about increased military spending. In fact defense contract companies stocks spiked the day the agreement was made.
We should budget our priorities and come up with a sensible tax plan based on sensible spending priorities.
The Republicans are wrong on everything but the democrats have yet to make me comfortable about increasing taxes. They have been quietly gutting Medicare benefits hiding behind Republican threats of doing away with it entirely for a voucher system. Democrats need to stop focusing on taxing and start focusing on a budget.
What I don't see is budgets that rebuild our failing infrastructure. I did see a budget deal that was largely about increased military spending. In fact defense contract companies stocks spiked the day the agreement was made.
We should budget our priorities and come up with a sensible tax plan based on sensible spending priorities.
The Republicans are wrong on everything but the democrats have yet to make me comfortable about increasing taxes. They have been quietly gutting Medicare benefits hiding behind Republican threats of doing away with it entirely for a voucher system. Democrats need to stop focusing on taxing and start focusing on a budget.
1
Republican tax "ideas" are quite blatantly transparent: to aggregate an even greater share of national treasure to those who already own virtually all the cookies in the jar. The GOP offers Robin Hood in reverse, but the "base," coddled in its fear and loathing, gobbles-up its own oppression as if it were sugar candy, which it is.
Are the rich are rich because they justly earned their wealth? With a heavily sponsored thumb on the scale of federal taxation, they've earned it more with the political influence they've purchased at auction than with any productive contribution to the nation's economic strength.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Are the rich are rich because they justly earned their wealth? With a heavily sponsored thumb on the scale of federal taxation, they've earned it more with the political influence they've purchased at auction than with any productive contribution to the nation's economic strength.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
People's personal wealth that you want to steal is not "national treasure." Earn your own money.
1
Ah the NYT never met a tax it did not like. There is much fat to cut in the federal budget. Eliminate food stamps, welfare, housing vouchers. No home mortgage deduction. Cut defense 10% - 20% or start billing Europe and others for providing their defense. We've been supporting them for a century. WWI, WWII, Marshal Plan, and cold war. And even today they spend next to nothing on defense because we spend so much. Easy to afford lots of butter (high speed rail, socialized medicine, no tuition high ed, etc) when the US taxpayer is footing the bill for your guns. That's why Europeans love socialism. They're always on the receiving end.
2
Some of the specifics might be wrong but the concepts are valid.
The only way to have a more transparent, effective government is to flatten out the code and eliminate most of the deductions thereby eliminating most of the lobbyists. That would force our representativesite to actually work on our problems.
We have a spending problem , not a revenue problem in terms of dollars but in terms of the cost of collecting.
This article Is proganda against the clown show everyone knows simple across the board tax cuts won't work. We need actual reform and it would be nice to see some articles addressing facts and options.
The only way to have a more transparent, effective government is to flatten out the code and eliminate most of the deductions thereby eliminating most of the lobbyists. That would force our representativesite to actually work on our problems.
We have a spending problem , not a revenue problem in terms of dollars but in terms of the cost of collecting.
This article Is proganda against the clown show everyone knows simple across the board tax cuts won't work. We need actual reform and it would be nice to see some articles addressing facts and options.
There may be a grain of truth in the editorial about the revenue results of the Republican tax proposals, but the option offered that the "reality is that income tax increases can be prudently imposed only on the wealthy at this point" is what the discussion is all about. Our government has become so big and costly that the editorial concedes that there are no practical ways to fund it other than to put even more burdens on the so-called rich, which the editorial does not define, but which probably means, at the end of the day, anyone with a steady job.
All of us have to live within our means and do not have the ability to spend beyond our means indefinitely. Why should government be beyond that very simple concept?
If the Republicans are saying that taxes should be set at a reasonable level and government should than live within the means that level of taxes produces, why does that sound like a bad idea? It may require a review of priorities and some tough decisions, but this is what virtually every citizen has to do, even the wealthy.
If what the editorial is suggesting is that whatever government wants to do has to be supported by the wealthy, which seems to be the the ultimate point of the editorial, that sounds like a very bad idea. In fact, it sounds like a tyranny of a minority by the majority.
All of us have to live within our means and do not have the ability to spend beyond our means indefinitely. Why should government be beyond that very simple concept?
If the Republicans are saying that taxes should be set at a reasonable level and government should than live within the means that level of taxes produces, why does that sound like a bad idea? It may require a review of priorities and some tough decisions, but this is what virtually every citizen has to do, even the wealthy.
If what the editorial is suggesting is that whatever government wants to do has to be supported by the wealthy, which seems to be the the ultimate point of the editorial, that sounds like a very bad idea. In fact, it sounds like a tyranny of a minority by the majority.
1
I think that we actually need to embrace a flat tax if we want real reform. However, it should apply to capital gains, as well as income. Treat all forms of income the same.
There will also need to be a substantial amount that is tax free for everyone. This tax free amount needs to be indexed to inflation or a multiple of the poverty level.
Finally, the mortgage interest deduction, and probably all deductions, need to be removed. They are regressive.
There will also need to be a substantial amount that is tax free for everyone. This tax free amount needs to be indexed to inflation or a multiple of the poverty level.
Finally, the mortgage interest deduction, and probably all deductions, need to be removed. They are regressive.
Tax reform is one of my significant interests. If the election were held tomorrow I would likely vote for Dr. Carson - and he doesn’t even have a plan. Carson is one of a handful like Farina, Cruz and Huckabee that know the evil caused by the $1.3 trillion in tax expenditures (credits, deductions, special rates, deferrals and exemptions). Carson is also someone who can admit when he makes a mistake speaking in generalities about what tax percentage might be needed from an $18 trillion economy or whether Medicare should be replaced or simply made optional.
Carson also knows that government regulations are a tax whenever the government tells an individual or business that they must pay a fee or provide insurance even though the regulation is not called a tax. Tax reform, like all public policy, is a matter of keeping the good and getting rid of the bad. It requires balance and good judgment and incremental changes are no longer enough.
In time Carson might learn that gift and estate taxes are intended to tax economic income that was never taxed such as unrealized capital gains. It would be unfair to eliminate the “death tax” for estates over $5 million yet tax every penny of a middle class 401K at the time of passing.
Other candidates want to keep the worst of our tax code either because it benefits them (Trump) or because it is part of a political deal that included too much bad with the good. Incremental reform (Rubio) is just not enough.
Carson also knows that government regulations are a tax whenever the government tells an individual or business that they must pay a fee or provide insurance even though the regulation is not called a tax. Tax reform, like all public policy, is a matter of keeping the good and getting rid of the bad. It requires balance and good judgment and incremental changes are no longer enough.
In time Carson might learn that gift and estate taxes are intended to tax economic income that was never taxed such as unrealized capital gains. It would be unfair to eliminate the “death tax” for estates over $5 million yet tax every penny of a middle class 401K at the time of passing.
Other candidates want to keep the worst of our tax code either because it benefits them (Trump) or because it is part of a political deal that included too much bad with the good. Incremental reform (Rubio) is just not enough.
1
The only talk continues to be about taxes and and deficit reduction. But they are the tail wagging the horse. Investment is or should be the issue. A vibrant economy with growing sustainable real GDP has the ability to sustain appropriate public funding of many programs.
But we disinvest in our country. I know a few, and heard of many other 1%'ers are borrowing money at near zero rates and investing in real-estate throughout the US and other countries. Companies are using record low interest to buy other companies and their own stock. Whether these are beneficial to the overall economy can be argued. The point to ponder is that the country is not acting like any other prudent business or investor and using near zero interest to invest in the future. Investment in roads, education, water resources will return many times the cost through economic growth and strength. But we squander the opportunity of a century.
And the so called business people in the Republican get togethers are unable to apply what they would prudently use in their businesses to the business of a country.
I'm sorry NY Times. The editorial propagates the myopic view of a fiscal discussion to one of taxes.
But we disinvest in our country. I know a few, and heard of many other 1%'ers are borrowing money at near zero rates and investing in real-estate throughout the US and other countries. Companies are using record low interest to buy other companies and their own stock. Whether these are beneficial to the overall economy can be argued. The point to ponder is that the country is not acting like any other prudent business or investor and using near zero interest to invest in the future. Investment in roads, education, water resources will return many times the cost through economic growth and strength. But we squander the opportunity of a century.
And the so called business people in the Republican get togethers are unable to apply what they would prudently use in their businesses to the business of a country.
I'm sorry NY Times. The editorial propagates the myopic view of a fiscal discussion to one of taxes.
4
As a tax attorney, I've looked into Sen. Ted Cruz's proposed 16% flat corporate tax plan, which he deems "simple and fair."
Okay. The tax rate applies to gross revenue less cost of goods sold. No apparent deduction for salary and wages. No concept of depreciation. No concept of losses.
This means that salaries are taxed twice, once at the corporate rate, and again at the individual rate, I would think.
Also, if the corporation suffers a loss, it would still be required to pay the flat rate on the gross sales less COGS, right?
Either, Cruz's plan is incompetent, or it is incomplete, or it requires additional explanation, or it is so simple that it's unfair. Pick one.
Okay. The tax rate applies to gross revenue less cost of goods sold. No apparent deduction for salary and wages. No concept of depreciation. No concept of losses.
This means that salaries are taxed twice, once at the corporate rate, and again at the individual rate, I would think.
Also, if the corporation suffers a loss, it would still be required to pay the flat rate on the gross sales less COGS, right?
Either, Cruz's plan is incompetent, or it is incomplete, or it requires additional explanation, or it is so simple that it's unfair. Pick one.
8
After the the GWB tax cuts and the Great Recession, federal tax revenues dropped from 20% of GDP (under President Clinton, when the budget was last balanced) to 15% of GDP during much of President Obama's term.
On this metric, federal revenues are now rising, but will not reach Clinton levels during the Obama presidency. The deficit in recent years has dropped below the 40 year historic average computed by the CBO, having fallen under Obama at the fastest pace since the end of WWII.
Miraculously, Republicans have made the ''deficit story'' their own, pretending that outrageous spending by the President (who cannot spend a nickel without prior congressional authorization) will drive the United States into bankruptcy.
This is an attractive narrative to the donor class, which has benefited the most from sharply reduced top marginal income tax rates and the preferential treatment of investment income. It also appeals intuitively, if not correctly, to the many Americans who are persuaded that deficits are always ruinous. The press facilitates by repeating, uncritically, the Republican narrative and failing to report the actual facts.
So now Republicans want to cut taxes again, undoubtedly driving the deficit up to mythic levels they have screamed about during the Obama term. They won't say what spending they will cut (defense, Social Security, Medicare, etc.), but as President Clinton said, they don't seem to grasp that the magic of deficit reduction is simple arithmetic.
On this metric, federal revenues are now rising, but will not reach Clinton levels during the Obama presidency. The deficit in recent years has dropped below the 40 year historic average computed by the CBO, having fallen under Obama at the fastest pace since the end of WWII.
Miraculously, Republicans have made the ''deficit story'' their own, pretending that outrageous spending by the President (who cannot spend a nickel without prior congressional authorization) will drive the United States into bankruptcy.
This is an attractive narrative to the donor class, which has benefited the most from sharply reduced top marginal income tax rates and the preferential treatment of investment income. It also appeals intuitively, if not correctly, to the many Americans who are persuaded that deficits are always ruinous. The press facilitates by repeating, uncritically, the Republican narrative and failing to report the actual facts.
So now Republicans want to cut taxes again, undoubtedly driving the deficit up to mythic levels they have screamed about during the Obama term. They won't say what spending they will cut (defense, Social Security, Medicare, etc.), but as President Clinton said, they don't seem to grasp that the magic of deficit reduction is simple arithmetic.
15
The GOP will propose cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and agencies that regulate business. They will never propose cuts to the military, even if asked to by the Pentagon. They will never propose ending subsidies to the gas, oil or agriculture sectors. Those are THEIR welfare program.
1
"Miraculously, Republicans have made the ''deficit story'' their own, pretending that outrageous spending by the President (who cannot spend a nickel without prior congressional authorization) will drive the United States into bankruptcy. "
It's not miraculous. It's because Democrats are pathetic, political cowards unable and unwilling to call out blatant hypocrisy, determined obstruction, and willful lies because they're scared some Republican will call them "liberal" or something. Then there's the doormat media...
It's not miraculous. It's because Democrats are pathetic, political cowards unable and unwilling to call out blatant hypocrisy, determined obstruction, and willful lies because they're scared some Republican will call them "liberal" or something. Then there's the doormat media...
2
Tax revenues are a trailing indicator of economic conditions and policy, to enough of a degree that a significant part of your and any analysis that looks at administration cutoff dates only, is very flawed.
Clinton prevailed of the huge tax revenues of the internet and dot-com boom. The research and military budgeting that helped develop this system for eventual commercialization, took place well before Clinton took office, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Finally, your comment lacks any insight into the P.R. machine that the NYT helps perpetuate, targeted at those who believe there IS a free lunch.
President Obama has certainly impacted spending without the approval of congress. Most recently using the cudgel of "They are threatening to shut done the government and stop payments to YOUR social programs and YOUR military pay".
It's amazing to me that so much of the populace doesn't understand that, in a negotiation, there are two (at least) sides and that failure to compromise rests with both parties....and also that they don't ask "Wait, why are we not in jeopardy instead of shutting down Presidential, congressional and senatorial pay"....short answer?...because their minions would be all for it.
Clinton prevailed of the huge tax revenues of the internet and dot-com boom. The research and military budgeting that helped develop this system for eventual commercialization, took place well before Clinton took office, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Finally, your comment lacks any insight into the P.R. machine that the NYT helps perpetuate, targeted at those who believe there IS a free lunch.
President Obama has certainly impacted spending without the approval of congress. Most recently using the cudgel of "They are threatening to shut done the government and stop payments to YOUR social programs and YOUR military pay".
It's amazing to me that so much of the populace doesn't understand that, in a negotiation, there are two (at least) sides and that failure to compromise rests with both parties....and also that they don't ask "Wait, why are we not in jeopardy instead of shutting down Presidential, congressional and senatorial pay"....short answer?...because their minions would be all for it.
1
Our "journalists" must insist that the details of these tax plans be made public. Borrow one of Ross Perot's whiteboards and make them write the details out for all to see and evaluate. Force proponents to show precisely where the engendered growth will come from - which industries and through which investments. Do the math - compare investment returns both with and without taxes, including the after-tax cost of capital. Then stand back and enjoy the show. There will be more squirming than in a bucket of earthworms. We've had enough fiction, let's get to the substance. And the substance is that the GOP despises government because it is the ONLY entity that gives the poor and middle class any stake in the system, and must therefore be starved. This isn't about investment, about job growth, about the commonweal - this is entirely about "I've got mine, I'm keeping it, all of it, and I am not going to share. Now pipe down and eat your cake."
20
Actually, it's more like "I've got mine; I'm keeping it; I'm taking yours and the system is supposed to let me get away with it."
2
Let me cut to the chase here.
The Republicans tax plans can't work, even if you want them to work, because in an age of globalization there's nothing tying this wealth to America. In realty, what the American investor class does is take their wealth and either hide or invest it elsewhere. They are always in search of the greatest ROI, nation be dammed.
Hence, given the present day dynamics of our globalized economy, supply side is even less tenable than it was it Reagan's day - and it didn't work then. How utterly clueless do you have to be to imagine it working today?
What we need is a nationalistic tax code - a code that treats income generated wholly in America, using American labor paid fair wages, more favorably than income generated via the exploitation of emerging market labor.
As for conservatives whining about regulations, simply put, regulations are a check-and-balance on human behavior - and as history conclusively demonstrates, when large amounts money are involved, human beings routinely abandon the better angels of their nature.
We would need fewer regulations if Americans were more naturally virtuous - but given how many Americans appear to worship the Almighty Dollar (as witnessed via the popularity of a knave like Trump), a future with fewer formal regulations is as likely as Kim Kardashian retiring to a nunnery.
The Republicans tax plans can't work, even if you want them to work, because in an age of globalization there's nothing tying this wealth to America. In realty, what the American investor class does is take their wealth and either hide or invest it elsewhere. They are always in search of the greatest ROI, nation be dammed.
Hence, given the present day dynamics of our globalized economy, supply side is even less tenable than it was it Reagan's day - and it didn't work then. How utterly clueless do you have to be to imagine it working today?
What we need is a nationalistic tax code - a code that treats income generated wholly in America, using American labor paid fair wages, more favorably than income generated via the exploitation of emerging market labor.
As for conservatives whining about regulations, simply put, regulations are a check-and-balance on human behavior - and as history conclusively demonstrates, when large amounts money are involved, human beings routinely abandon the better angels of their nature.
We would need fewer regulations if Americans were more naturally virtuous - but given how many Americans appear to worship the Almighty Dollar (as witnessed via the popularity of a knave like Trump), a future with fewer formal regulations is as likely as Kim Kardashian retiring to a nunnery.
45
NYT Editorial Board: Hire Mr. Carnicelli.
1
"What we need is a nationalistic tax code - a code that treats income generated wholly in America, using American labor paid fair wages, more favorably than income generated via the exploitation of emerging market labor."
Under your system will Honda assembly line workers in Ohio be counted as being paid "fair wages"?
Under your system will Honda assembly line workers in Ohio be counted as being paid "fair wages"?
People feel they are overtaxed. Taxation not only comes at them from the federal level but also from the state and city level. It is a concern that confronts the average working class family from the moment they awake to the time they go to sleep. So any relief they can get in a stagnant economy where their wages have basically flat lined and health care costs have skyrocketed is greatly appreciated. That is a normal visceral re-action that Republicans take full advantage of. What people fail to consider is that the major beneficiary of these Republican flat tax plans in whole dollar amounts are the wealthy. If you are earning 50k a year and you get a 10% tax break that is an extra 5k in your wallet. However, the wealthy person making 1 million a year gets a 100k tax brake. And so the income inequality gap grows dramatically wider. It's a neat little political game. Give the public a little extra cheese and the Republicans' wealthy benefactors come out smiling like the cat that swallowed the canary.
6
Of course there is no rationale for across the board tax cuts, but without a few bucks for the middle class they could not make the case for hundreds of thousands or millions for the rich.
Of course this will bankrupt the government and cause Social Security and Medicare cuts. This is how Republicans work. They don't have the clout to cut the programs directly so they take action that will force such actions by others.
Ted Cruz fairly sums up the 2016 Republican candidate running for President. He thinks Americans are very stupid because the people who voted him into office are that stupid.
Cruz can put forth a flat tax plan with a VAT that will undoubtedly shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. He has the audacity to put forth that plan because he believes people are too stupid to realize what he is advocating.
Texas may hold a disproportionate yield of yahoos and fools, but the rest of the country won't be so easily fooled.
Of course this will bankrupt the government and cause Social Security and Medicare cuts. This is how Republicans work. They don't have the clout to cut the programs directly so they take action that will force such actions by others.
Ted Cruz fairly sums up the 2016 Republican candidate running for President. He thinks Americans are very stupid because the people who voted him into office are that stupid.
Cruz can put forth a flat tax plan with a VAT that will undoubtedly shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. He has the audacity to put forth that plan because he believes people are too stupid to realize what he is advocating.
Texas may hold a disproportionate yield of yahoos and fools, but the rest of the country won't be so easily fooled.
8
Have the Republicans learned nothing from the disastrous trickle down era? I hope whoever wins the election runs on a tax platform benefitting the rich at the expense of the working class, because if you look at the demographics, a general election is not winnable. Earth to Republicans: Unless a rich person gets to vote three times to one time for everyone else, your odds of winning are zero. To borrow a phrase from a former successful presidential candidate: "It's the economy, stupid!" Ignoring such needs as a decent minimum wage, profit sharing, and employee ownership will once again keep a Republican from occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. So go ahead Donald, Marco, Jeb, Ted, Ben, et al, promote your impossible taxation agenda. It's very curious they all invoke Reagan's hallowed name yet never mention his decision to raise taxes to tamp down the deficit.
7
Of course, none of the GOP tax plans will work, for they seek 'change', something special interests can easily defeat. In the real world, GOP, Democrat or Socialist, you can not change the tax code without providing 'inequality' to some group. Maybe some time, perhaps in the next century, a 'grand bargain' will happen of taxes. Currently it is beyond morals for any change in the tax code to happen. Until then, we will have a patch here, a patch there. Nothing that will be effective to truly provide substantial economic growth and prosperity to the nation. As for the Democrat tax plan, well they are all job killers, that will further hasten more capital investment to eliminate jobs. Somehow the basic economic reality the if you increase the cost of something, you will get less of it, never sinks in.
"The Republican presidential candidates were full of tax talk at this week’s debate. But none has a tax plan coherent enough to be the basis of a substantive discussion, let alone one that could meet the nation’s challenges."
Their object is not to meet the nation's challenges, but to appeal to their own gullible constituency, largely clustered at the 6th grade reading level when it comes to substantive discussion. We should think twice before laughing. Judging by the present composition of the House, Senate and many state legislatures, that strategy is working all too well. It is a strategy copied from PT Barnum and the tent show evangelists, who did well by focusing on the same constituency.
Their object is not to meet the nation's challenges, but to appeal to their own gullible constituency, largely clustered at the 6th grade reading level when it comes to substantive discussion. We should think twice before laughing. Judging by the present composition of the House, Senate and many state legislatures, that strategy is working all too well. It is a strategy copied from PT Barnum and the tent show evangelists, who did well by focusing on the same constituency.
15
Cutting taxes alone won't do it--true enough. In order to complete the recipe, government spending needs to be reined in and entitlements reformed. None of this will ever happen--because Democrats will never agree to a dime's worth of cuts to government spending--not a dime--except for defense.
2
Except that actual data from history shows that you are mistaken.
In 1993, without a SINGLE Republican vote, Democrats voted for a budget that gave us a prospering economy, decreasing deficits, and then a surplus, and which began to pay down the national debt. Then Republicans took control of the White House and Congress, with their typical borrow and spend budgets, lowering taxes on the wealthy and running 2 wars off the books, exploding the deficits and therefore the debt.
Republican voters don't seem to catch on to the difference between deficit and debt. Deficits have gone way down with a Democrat back in the White House after the disastrous Bush years. The current Republican candidates propose to explode the deficit as Bush ( and Reagan) did yet again.
In 1993, without a SINGLE Republican vote, Democrats voted for a budget that gave us a prospering economy, decreasing deficits, and then a surplus, and which began to pay down the national debt. Then Republicans took control of the White House and Congress, with their typical borrow and spend budgets, lowering taxes on the wealthy and running 2 wars off the books, exploding the deficits and therefore the debt.
Republican voters don't seem to catch on to the difference between deficit and debt. Deficits have gone way down with a Democrat back in the White House after the disastrous Bush years. The current Republican candidates propose to explode the deficit as Bush ( and Reagan) did yet again.
12
Do you really want to live in a third world country? Keep cutting the Federal budget.
4
Congress controls the purse strings & we currently have a Rebuplican majority in Congress so don't talk about Democrats being the problem.
3
Yes, how dare the GOP presidential candidates mention the words every liberal democrat hates to hear "tax cuts". How can anyone ever believe that our lives as taxpaying Americans would somehow be better if we are allowed to keep a little more of our hard earned money for ourselves.
Let's take a look at what great benefits higher taxes have gotten us over the last 50 years of democrat rule.
1. The war on poverty, 22 trillion tax dollars spent and more people in poverty than ever before.
2. Education, trillions spent every year and we are now behind countries like Latvia in math and science.
3. The VA, if you want to see the future of America under a one payer health system this is it. The model of inefficiency and government mismanagement at it's best.
4. Obamacare, we just found out that 1.6 billion dollars are unaccounted for in healthcare exchanges, and that's just what they have admitted to. We know there is more !
This list could go on and on, but what's the point we know democrats are in love with tax increases. To take a spin off from the old saying "there are two things you can count on in life death and the democrats love affair with taxes".
Let's take a look at what great benefits higher taxes have gotten us over the last 50 years of democrat rule.
1. The war on poverty, 22 trillion tax dollars spent and more people in poverty than ever before.
2. Education, trillions spent every year and we are now behind countries like Latvia in math and science.
3. The VA, if you want to see the future of America under a one payer health system this is it. The model of inefficiency and government mismanagement at it's best.
4. Obamacare, we just found out that 1.6 billion dollars are unaccounted for in healthcare exchanges, and that's just what they have admitted to. We know there is more !
This list could go on and on, but what's the point we know democrats are in love with tax increases. To take a spin off from the old saying "there are two things you can count on in life death and the democrats love affair with taxes".
4
"3. The VA, if you want to see the future of America under a one payer health system this is it. The model of inefficiency and government mismanagement at it's best.".......If you want to really see the future of a single payer system look to Canada. They have a better healthcare out come - they live longer, have a lower infant mortality rate, and a higher rate of user satisfaction. And they pay 40% less per person than we do. A 40% reduction in U.S. healthcare cost would save over $800 billion dollars a year, which is nearly twice our annual budget deficit. Those are facts. American exceptionalism needs to wake up. And the list could go on - like the education system you decry happens to be run at the state and local levels. Take a look at the south; the more local the worse the educational system is.
3
Better look at the latest statistics from Detroit's education system that came out last week nearly a 96% failure rate in reading and comprehension. That is a fact with over 75 years of liberal democrat run education system.
That's 23 million people versus 325 million people. 92 million are unemployed, and over 147 million are on some form of government assistance. The math will never work out, just like with social security !
The rich are blinded by greed. These Republicans just saying what their masters want them to say. Trickle down economics has made the wealthy massively richer while the rest of us are working for less. 51% of American workers make less than 30k now. Kids graduating collage have dept equal to a mortgage from my generation.
The rich's greed is insatiable .
The rich's greed is insatiable .
24
Just yesterday I received the monthly newsletter from my (R) congressman.
Proudly nothing he had voted against the House budget deal. I availed myself of the "reply here" feature and reminded him of a fact NO one can deny: The two gravest economic crises in US history occurred when a Republican was in the White House. Then I directed his attention to a current Republican-led financial debacle, the once stable state of Kansas, now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Reality bites, Congressman.
Proudly nothing he had voted against the House budget deal. I availed myself of the "reply here" feature and reminded him of a fact NO one can deny: The two gravest economic crises in US history occurred when a Republican was in the White House. Then I directed his attention to a current Republican-led financial debacle, the once stable state of Kansas, now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Reality bites, Congressman.
30
The Republican candidates are all liars. That is not a question. It is a fact.
The CNBC moderators did not call them liars. They just pointed out that the claims were mathematically impossible, and asked for clarification. What is dangerous is that the RNC portrays this as unfair. They want the news media to repeat their lies. It is the duty of the news media to report efforts like this to muzzle the press. The Republicans don't like democracy or the truth.
The CNBC moderators did not call them liars. They just pointed out that the claims were mathematically impossible, and asked for clarification. What is dangerous is that the RNC portrays this as unfair. They want the news media to repeat their lies. It is the duty of the news media to report efforts like this to muzzle the press. The Republicans don't like democracy or the truth.
34
Smart Democrats push for higher wages. Increase minimum wages, increase access to affordable and free education to increase wage promotion, increase rights for workers to keep higher wages through equal wage and anti-discrimination laws. Wages which is what we need, because with higher wages leads to higher standards of living.
Lowering taxes for most Americans means lowering their standard of living since most of the taxes they pay go back to them through their lives in the form of education, roads, Social Security, Medicare and more.
Democrats are for higher standards for everyone. Makes you wonder who the Republicans are interested in helping.
Lowering taxes for most Americans means lowering their standard of living since most of the taxes they pay go back to them through their lives in the form of education, roads, Social Security, Medicare and more.
Democrats are for higher standards for everyone. Makes you wonder who the Republicans are interested in helping.
27
"The only way the Republican candidates could ever pay for such large tax cuts would be by slashing big spending programs, namely, Medicare and Social Security."
And that, my friends, is the goal the very rich have in mind.
And that, my friends, is the goal the very rich have in mind.
37
The arithmetic: A flat universal personal income tax rate of 8.3% with no deductions for anything will yield the same revenue as our present 73,000 page tax code. That is $1.1 trillion revenue on $13 trillion personal income.
6
Where does the number of $1.1 trillion come from? I just googled "revenues on personal income" and found that the tax center says that in 2014 the revenue was $1.394 trillion for 2014. The number was $1.1 trillion in 2011 and 2012.
Can elimination of reductions for interest on home mortgages and charitable deductions get through congress? Both would be fine with me (mortgage long paid for, it was never clear to me why huge deductions of Mitt Romney to the Morman church should be tax deductible), but many would be quite unhappy.
Can elimination of reductions for interest on home mortgages and charitable deductions get through congress? Both would be fine with me (mortgage long paid for, it was never clear to me why huge deductions of Mitt Romney to the Morman church should be tax deductible), but many would be quite unhappy.
1
And people making the minimum wage, and don't have enough money to buy food, will have to cough up $1369 they don't have to pay their taxes. Where's the compassion?
3
But is it fair for someone with $20K of income pay 8.1% of his income to tax, and Bill Gates also pay the same rate?
3
John F. Kennedy proposed cutting taxes on the rich. Where was the NYT's outrage then?
Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon reduced taxes on the rich and the poor, and the result of his policies (those that Congress approved) reduced the overall public debt from $33B in 1919 to $16B in 1929, when the government-created Great Depression sent the debt soaring again.
But don't let historical facts get in the way of your message.
Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon reduced taxes on the rich and the poor, and the result of his policies (those that Congress approved) reduced the overall public debt from $33B in 1919 to $16B in 1929, when the government-created Great Depression sent the debt soaring again.
But don't let historical facts get in the way of your message.
5
Excuse me, but when Kennedy suggested cutting taxes, the top rate was 91%.
You could look it up.
You could look it up.
22
Federal taxes during the period 1919 to 1929 were tiny and had little effect on the economy one way or another. The real test of tax structure is the period after WW II - the highest income tax rate was over 90% until 1965 and the economy boomed and inequality was reduced (and the wartime debt was steadily reduced). During most of that time government was a larger part of the economy than it is now. Huge cuts since then have not caused better performance and have increased the debt.
18
And he cut the top rate from 91% to 70%. How many Republicans who cite JFK for their support of the principle of tax cuts would agree to 70% ??
9
"Taxes have to go up"? Wow, just wow. Good luck finding an ordinary American who wants to pay more in taxes. If you think increases will be limited to the rich you are living in la la land.
And a 40% increase in taxes over next 10 years to keep up with inflation and population growth? What bizarro world did that number come from, it certainly did not come from the real world.
People might be willing to pay more tax if it was dedicated to a specific acknowledged need like infrastructure. No thank you to more waste on the bloated overall Federal budget or impossible nonsense like preventing climate change.
And a 40% increase in taxes over next 10 years to keep up with inflation and population growth? What bizarro world did that number come from, it certainly did not come from the real world.
People might be willing to pay more tax if it was dedicated to a specific acknowledged need like infrastructure. No thank you to more waste on the bloated overall Federal budget or impossible nonsense like preventing climate change.
5
Your arithmetic is flawed. Revenues have to go up by 40%. Taxes do not as % of income if income goes up with inflation and population growth leads to more people paying taxes. Whether overall taxes as % of income need to increase will depend on the ratio of non-working to working population. Unlike other industrial nations that ratio is relatively flat in the US (in part thanks to immigration). Some increases are needed to take care of aging infrastructure, much of that can be handled by raising capital gain taxes and inheritance taxes, which are lower in the US than in other developed nations.
7
I am willing to pay more in taxes. I have derived great benefit from being born in the United States of America, and I see things that need to be done (infrastructure, help with college tuition, etc.). Our taxes are less than in northern Europe. If we do not address climate change, we will not have a planet to live in. Interestingly, solar and wind are now cost-competitive with fossil fuels, as Mr. Christie pointed out during the most recent debate.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
3
It might be a mistake to think that Republicans want their tax plans to produce enough revenue to pay for social programs. Either they are seriously deluded (possible) or they want to create a fiscal crisis so that they can reduce government "to the size where [they] can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" (more possible).
23
Might? Might be a mistake? The prime objective of the Republican party is to destroy the federal government. Social Security is to be privatized for Wall Street's and the mediocrities' that work there enrichment. Medicare and Medicaid is just simply to be killed. Because markets or something. They're so contemptuous of all other forms of welfare and assistance (except for welfare for the wealthy) that the fewer Americans that would result from their butchery would please them immensely. Don't believe me? Ask one. They don't care who is crushed by their actions.
3
Urinate on my leg and tell me it is raining. All hail the "job creators"
Cut a rich mans taxes and maybe he will hire another gardener or pool boy.
Jobs are an expense, the only thing that crates job is demand. Tax cuts on wealthy people will not create enough demand to justify hiring, One thing the promise of tax cuts for the wealthy may generate is campaign contributions.
Cut a rich mans taxes and maybe he will hire another gardener or pool boy.
Jobs are an expense, the only thing that crates job is demand. Tax cuts on wealthy people will not create enough demand to justify hiring, One thing the promise of tax cuts for the wealthy may generate is campaign contributions.
30
'The reality is that income tax increases can be prudently imposed only on the wealthy at this point, because only they have had meaningful income gains in recent decades.'
Fed income taxes have been raised for rich by Obama. We have the highest revenues ever (3.4T), but still have nearly a 500b deficit. The US has the most progressive tax system in the world (google it). 47% of earners don't pay fed income taxes. And you guys (libs, dems, NYTEB) just want more more more to spend mindlessly and recklessly. That's what government does with the money we now give (haha)) them. It is not how much money you want to spend, it is how you spend the money you have. Until they learn how to spend wisely and not waste it (accountability), they should not get a penny more. And everyone needs skin in the fed income tax game. "Responsible policy," indeed. No such thing with the libs/dems/NYTEB.
Fed income taxes have been raised for rich by Obama. We have the highest revenues ever (3.4T), but still have nearly a 500b deficit. The US has the most progressive tax system in the world (google it). 47% of earners don't pay fed income taxes. And you guys (libs, dems, NYTEB) just want more more more to spend mindlessly and recklessly. That's what government does with the money we now give (haha)) them. It is not how much money you want to spend, it is how you spend the money you have. Until they learn how to spend wisely and not waste it (accountability), they should not get a penny more. And everyone needs skin in the fed income tax game. "Responsible policy," indeed. No such thing with the libs/dems/NYTEB.
6
The 47% deal again.
The reason such a large percentage of citizens do not pay federal taxes is that their incomes are so paltry that doing so would place an undue burden on an already meager lifeline.
As for the spend wisely deal: "conservatives" have actually been the worst at increasing government and deficits.
The reason such a large percentage of citizens do not pay federal taxes is that their incomes are so paltry that doing so would place an undue burden on an already meager lifeline.
As for the spend wisely deal: "conservatives" have actually been the worst at increasing government and deficits.
4
"Mr. Responsible policy" WKO, who undoubtedly supported the Republican plan of initiating two unfunded wars, led by a president whose only strategy to pay for them was to encourage Americans to "go shopping."
2
Good point. This is why we need to cut the DoD budget to a level that it's no longer a jobs program for defense contractors and just a way to transfer lots of money from public to private hands without any accountability. An added benefit will be that going to war just to make it all happen faster will not be as easy as it is today.
1
As long as we get concomitant economic growth via less regs, less people on the welfare dole, less illegal immigrants, etc, then their tax plans will absolutely work. Couple that with a massive repatriation of corporate monies parked overseas, every GOP tax plan works.
Democrats merely rely on higher taxes and bigger government. That is failure on a massive scale.
Democrats merely rely on higher taxes and bigger government. That is failure on a massive scale.
4
@Cjmesq0
Bronx, NY
So Brownback's reduction of taxes in KS is your definition of massive success is it? Or how about Bush's? We didn't get concomitant growth. There was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And after the greatest economic crash since the 30's which was largely the consequence of lax regulation you're proposing LESS regulation? More immigrants legal or otherwise btw are actually a net contributor to economic growth as several studies have demonstrated. Why are Republicans economically illiterate. Let me explain something to you in simple terms. If you give a $1 billion in tax cuts to Mike Bloomberg he basically puts the money in the bank. If I give that same billion to 100,000 people (that's $10,000 each) via redistribution they go and spend it on cars, clothes, fridges etc. thus boosting consumer spending and hence GDP. Compris?
Bronx, NY
So Brownback's reduction of taxes in KS is your definition of massive success is it? Or how about Bush's? We didn't get concomitant growth. There was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And after the greatest economic crash since the 30's which was largely the consequence of lax regulation you're proposing LESS regulation? More immigrants legal or otherwise btw are actually a net contributor to economic growth as several studies have demonstrated. Why are Republicans economically illiterate. Let me explain something to you in simple terms. If you give a $1 billion in tax cuts to Mike Bloomberg he basically puts the money in the bank. If I give that same billion to 100,000 people (that's $10,000 each) via redistribution they go and spend it on cars, clothes, fridges etc. thus boosting consumer spending and hence GDP. Compris?
7
Your assumption that lower taxes will lead to economic growth is a trickle-down fantasy. Equally fantastic is the assumption that corporations will bring back their money from offshore and use it in any truly constructive manner. There is no empirical (i.e., historical) evidence to support your expectations.
4
Didn't read the article, did you?
2
The good news, if you can call it that, is that we're beginning to see concrete evidence of the harm that comes from a generation of tax cuts: crumbling infrastructure, deteriorating criminal justice system, blows to public education, rising inequality, etc., etc. The bad news is that too many people hate taxes so much that it's politically beneficial to advocate for more cuts.
42
Most Americans have the idea they pay too much in taxes. The truth is they have no idea how much their lives would change toward the negative, including greater expenses in many areas, if those taxes weren't there. They want to services taxes provide such as good education, police, military protection, roads, public areas, without having to pay for them. It's really a very selfish and immature attitude.
4
Interesting. I wonder how much Government spending has increased during that same period? Maybe tax cuts aren't the problem, but graft and waste are.
The tooth fairy supplies all these services. And Corporations and rich depend upon this tooth fairy to supply them.. They gripes about taxes and regulations that create a level playing field.
We need to tax all companies equally and if they decide to hide their American made profits somewhere or move out of the country we should levy large penalties on them such as tariffs on their goods shipped back to the US. These companies will attempt to pass along the costs of these tariffs to their consumers, but perhaps new American companies would then become competitive and take their place or the old ones decide to relocate back to the US. Companies need to know there are negative consequences for biting the hand that feeds them.
We need to tax all companies equally and if they decide to hide their American made profits somewhere or move out of the country we should levy large penalties on them such as tariffs on their goods shipped back to the US. These companies will attempt to pass along the costs of these tariffs to their consumers, but perhaps new American companies would then become competitive and take their place or the old ones decide to relocate back to the US. Companies need to know there are negative consequences for biting the hand that feeds them.
1
Here's my tax proposal: (1) All income is treated the same; (2) the only tax exemptions are for charitable contributions, state and local and real estate taxes, and mortgage interest (on one home); (3) five tax brackets: 0% for income under $30,000; 10% for the next $40,000 (up to $70,000); 20% for the next $50,000 (up to $120,000); 30% for the next $80,000 (up to $200,000) and 40% on everyone else with the amounts indexed to inflation; (4) raise the income for the FICA (or Social Security) tax to $1 million also indexed to inflation. It's simple, progressive, fair. Yes, I'd pay more, but I feel I owe it to my fellow citizens for the privilege of being lucky enough to have been born here. It's time to end the income inequality, trickle-down tax shell game the Republicans have been conning us with while blinding us with all the divisive, "red meat," fear-based wedge issues form anti-abortion, anti-climate change, anti-gun regulation, anti-immigrant, anti-Iran nuclear deal, anti-Obamacare while picking our pockets of programs the majority of us (or our parents and grandparents) depend upon like Medicare and Social Security.
72
I don't understand the logic of and rationale for " . . . tax exemptions for charitable contributions, state and local and real estate taxes, and mortgage interest (on one home)." On the assumption that tax expenditures for government goods and services are all necessary and will not be reduced, it logically follows that exempting taxation on charitable contributions, state and local and real estate taxes, and mortgage interest on only one home serves only to shift the tax burden from those who benefit from tax exemptions to those who do not take (or are eligible to take) tax exemptions. For example, Paul's charitable deduction for a contribution to a charity with which I do not agree and to which I do not contribute, forces me, in effect, to subsidize his contribution. The same logic applies to Paul's exemption from mortgage interest he pays for his home where I elect to pay cash for my home. In effect, I end up subsidizing he election to finance his mortgage payments because he elected to purchase a home by borrowing/financing the payment of that home.
I don't understand the logic of tax exemption for having children. Exemption from taxation based upon the number of children one has essentially shifts the burden of raising those children to those who elect not to have children.
I believe that the total elimination of all exemption from taxation removes all distortion from the tax system attributable to exemption from taxation.
I don't understand the logic of tax exemption for having children. Exemption from taxation based upon the number of children one has essentially shifts the burden of raising those children to those who elect not to have children.
I believe that the total elimination of all exemption from taxation removes all distortion from the tax system attributable to exemption from taxation.
3
Good clear plan. My only emendation would be to tax those under $30,000 a nominal amount, even if it's 1 or 2%. It's important to include everyone in the taxation process, since we all benefit. We need to promote the idea that we are all in this together and that we all need to be a part of supporting our country's needs.
2
I would recommend capping the amount of mortgage interest that could be deducted, and it also might be time to revisit the definition of "non-profit" in the tax code.
3
Everyone can see how these tax plans will work out simply by looking at Kansas and the catastrophic state of its public finances. Republican ideology has been captured by so-called business interests, and has forgotten that the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare.
97
T.J.P.
Right, Democratically controlled cities and states like Detroit, Chicago, California and Illinois are in great fiscal shape!
Right, Democratically controlled cities and states like Detroit, Chicago, California and Illinois are in great fiscal shape!
The GOP agrees with one of their own past presidents, that beacon of good governance, Calvin Coolidge: "The business of America is business."
To the detriment of us all.
To the detriment of us all.
3
The stark fact is that the entire purpose of Republican tax proposals as well as the entire Republican economy we have all been enduring since the days of George Bush has been to increase the power and influence of the wealthiest class, to the detriment of everyone else. They most emphatically do not want a better country for everyone, only for this one small class and all their hirelings and enablers in the greater society. The end goal is command and control by the people who count over the fools and suckers who vote for them. And one day, and perhaps we're already there, it will be too late to do anything about it.
3
You folks on the Editorial Board need to keep up! Don't you get the joke of the Laugher Curve? It's part of a sort of Ponzi scheme, aided by the Norquistian small-government tack to restore a plantation economy. (Though most of the scheme operators will go down with it when it collapses from its own weight.)
The deal is to buy on the nation's plastic, which we did largely under Reagan, Bush the Lesser and Obama (though he had no choice but to pay for two wars and have some semblance of a recovery). That's for extra government expenditures to benefit the wealthy, like KBR profit-center and pipeline-defending wars and bailing out the too-big-to-fail (at par, btw). Then when the bills come due, voila!, with tax cuts we shift the debt so it rests more on the middle class. It's brilliant. And now it's time for another round! "This is our due!" Champagne and caviar!
Only problem is, the middle class is disappearing. So maybe the Norquist sub-text is going to win out. The government will go under. But then, what will the big boys do without their subsidies and guaranteed rents when there's no government to pave their way, and no middle class to support them? Just a question. Will our society just have an "oops" moment? No matter! Champagne and caviar while the band's still upright!
The deal is to buy on the nation's plastic, which we did largely under Reagan, Bush the Lesser and Obama (though he had no choice but to pay for two wars and have some semblance of a recovery). That's for extra government expenditures to benefit the wealthy, like KBR profit-center and pipeline-defending wars and bailing out the too-big-to-fail (at par, btw). Then when the bills come due, voila!, with tax cuts we shift the debt so it rests more on the middle class. It's brilliant. And now it's time for another round! "This is our due!" Champagne and caviar!
Only problem is, the middle class is disappearing. So maybe the Norquist sub-text is going to win out. The government will go under. But then, what will the big boys do without their subsidies and guaranteed rents when there's no government to pave their way, and no middle class to support them? Just a question. Will our society just have an "oops" moment? No matter! Champagne and caviar while the band's still upright!
1
It is quite incredible that the GOP are able to convince the majority of their supporters to vote against their own self interest. Cutting taxes sees a further redistribution of wealth from the less well off to the 0.1%. This will result in less government funds for infrastructure, health, education, social security.....everything except Defence, which is immune from any government cuts.
What the GOP representatives are expert at, is that they can fake sincerity so well. When one has a diet of fast food and a preference for reality TV, it is not a big step to accept the GOP is their friend and their policies are good for America.
What the GOP representatives are expert at, is that they can fake sincerity so well. When one has a diet of fast food and a preference for reality TV, it is not a big step to accept the GOP is their friend and their policies are good for America.
4
The rationale for tax cuts comes down to growth, and growth outside the silicon valley, app centric world where most people between the coasts work, live and struggle to get by. Net new business formation is low because taxes are high, regulation is a more crushing burden than taxes favoring the biggest companies, and success in basic business is generally looked at hostilely or at least skeptically. Opening a bank, a mine, a sawmill, a paper mill, a paint factory, or a oil facility is about impossible these days, as are a lot of other things.
Break up the banks, break up the pharmacies and the drug companies, USE anti trust law instead of milking big companies for donations and make it easier and cheaper for main street to thrive with tax and regulatory reform.
Break up the banks, break up the pharmacies and the drug companies, USE anti trust law instead of milking big companies for donations and make it easier and cheaper for main street to thrive with tax and regulatory reform.
1
May I ask for a change in vocabulary when discussing finance. The vast majority of the top 10% do not earn more than a small proportion of their income. What is so often referred to as earnings is what they are paid not what they have earned. Other income is the unearned profits paid to them by investment of the excess of paid over earned income.
1
This is the heart of what I call The Great Conservative Going Out of Business Sale of 2015. These candidates are merely proposing what GOP candidates have always proposed with disastrous results if they got elected. There's no more room for tax cuts and proposing them simply exposes the bankruptcy of ideas that the Republican party has embraced.
4
Republican rationality has gone to the same place as Reagan republicans: the moderate democratic wing. The lack of fiscal reality will in no way prevent a republican president from signing into law these tax cuts when passed by "our" representative congress. Reason number 2, behind the Supreme Court nominations, of 3,582 to vote for the "anyone but republican" option on the presidential ballot.
Mike's tax plan (available as "private label" for free to all candidates):
1. Raise top inheritance tax rate to 50%
2. Institute a carbon tax that holds gas at a minimum of $4/gallon
3. Computer trading tax
4. Treat capital gains as income
5. Raise SS taxable wage limit to $200,000
6. End subsidies to corporate farms and mining and oil
1. Raise top inheritance tax rate to 50%
2. Institute a carbon tax that holds gas at a minimum of $4/gallon
3. Computer trading tax
4. Treat capital gains as income
5. Raise SS taxable wage limit to $200,000
6. End subsidies to corporate farms and mining and oil
5
Piketty's astute observations, which are based on actual research over a long period of time about the path to wealth, basically proves that those with money to invest accumulate wealth at FIVE times the rate of the average worker bee. Hence the top 0.01%. For GOP presidential candidates to claim that a flat tax (note the appeal to "fairness") would work, or that tax cuts should be weighted towards the already wealthy so the "trickle down" concept could again rear its ugly head should be anathema to any average working citizen who has experienced firsthand what the Bush policies have wrought, or for the young who have even the faintest interest in understanding the truth about tax policy through reading Piketty.
I hope Hillary can somehow expand upon the need to favor the poor and vanishing middle class with tax policy in her campaign to include the Piketty research, and shine a light on the futile tax policy that the GOP continues to champion, and who it favors.
I hope Hillary can somehow expand upon the need to favor the poor and vanishing middle class with tax policy in her campaign to include the Piketty research, and shine a light on the futile tax policy that the GOP continues to champion, and who it favors.
2
We can raise incomes or we can raise taxes. With wages relatively flat, and being pressured downwards, and an increasing number of jobs in lower paying service industries, income growth is not happening.
Our central problem is not government spending, it is not high taxes, it is not an imbalance between state and federal oversight. It is that we have not figured out how to maintain our economy in the face of global labor competition. And no trickle down tax policy has worked to reverse that.
Try something new, GOP.
Our central problem is not government spending, it is not high taxes, it is not an imbalance between state and federal oversight. It is that we have not figured out how to maintain our economy in the face of global labor competition. And no trickle down tax policy has worked to reverse that.
Try something new, GOP.
2
You have to remember that the goal of the republican tax plan is the elimination of poor people. Not the elimination of poverty. Keeping, them hungry, sick, cold, and away from ballot box helps the rich get it all. Entitlements!? Didn't Ebenezer Scrooge have a method. They had best hurry up and die. This vision is what the ghosts of Christmas Greed brought. No government except police, a large disenfranchised population to blame, and the quick death of the lesser. It's their Halloween fantasy final solution.
3
For decades we have listened to Republican clap trap that tax cuts will pay for themselves since they l stimulate growth and investment and cause a " trickle down effect". After decades of this nonsense what we have learned is that is makes the rich significantly richer yet they pay billions to republican politicians to pursue even greater tax cuts or hide their money offshore! IN the interim there has never been greater income inequality than , today all the while we have fought two wars , and have an infrastructure that is old and outdated and we cannot pass a bill to fix and keep our highways safe. The standard answer from the GOP is we need greater cuts to the basic services government is obligated to provide and to eviscerate if not obliterate social security, medicare and medicaid and aid to dependent families and children. Compassionate conservatism! What boggles my mind is the tax cuts they have been championing for the past 35 years cannot and will not impact 99 % of the population because they do not earn enough money, have no significant savings and or investments and certainly would never qualify to pay estate taxes. What they need is social security , medicare and medicaid and other entitlements the government is supposed to provide and they paid for. Yet they continue to vote Republican and scream in righteous indignation they need tax relief. Wake up people !
4
While artithmetic, mathematics, history and objective reality show that you can not cut taxes and increase or maintain spending on social welfare programs and the military, since the mythology of St. Ronald Reagan claims that you can and that he did to quote Hillary Clinton "What difference does it make?"
The Republicans running for President are not scientists nor historians nor honest nor humane nor humble nor moral. They are mammalian primate apes who are inexorably drive by biological DNA genetic evolutionary natural selection to crave and seek out salt,fat,sugar, water, habitat, sex and kin. But they are disguised as politicians deceptively acting and speaking to hide their true natures and motivations.
The Republicans are mostly treacherous rebel Confederates by predictable political predilection. Just short of armed rebellion and secession, they do not seek to govern the United States of America. But to cripple America on behalf of the interests and values of the military and prison - industrial complexes and Wall Street corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarchs welfare kings and queens.
The Republicans running for President are not scientists nor historians nor honest nor humane nor humble nor moral. They are mammalian primate apes who are inexorably drive by biological DNA genetic evolutionary natural selection to crave and seek out salt,fat,sugar, water, habitat, sex and kin. But they are disguised as politicians deceptively acting and speaking to hide their true natures and motivations.
The Republicans are mostly treacherous rebel Confederates by predictable political predilection. Just short of armed rebellion and secession, they do not seek to govern the United States of America. But to cripple America on behalf of the interests and values of the military and prison - industrial complexes and Wall Street corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarchs welfare kings and queens.
3
I must say, a balanced assessment of reality such as this one is always helpful.
1
"The only way the Republican candidates could ever pay for such large tax cuts would be by slashing big spending programs, namely, Medicare and Social Security."
Very true. Carson wants savings accounts and other candidates have proposed block grants for healthcare for those not of retirement age. They fundamentally want to dismantle government. What will happen is that we will be a nation of haves and have nots. States that see the wisdom in supporting the health and welfare of its residents will have healthy populations and forward thinking policies on climate change and infrastructure. These should not be things left up to individual states; we are stronger as a nation when we approach issues together.
Very true. Carson wants savings accounts and other candidates have proposed block grants for healthcare for those not of retirement age. They fundamentally want to dismantle government. What will happen is that we will be a nation of haves and have nots. States that see the wisdom in supporting the health and welfare of its residents will have healthy populations and forward thinking policies on climate change and infrastructure. These should not be things left up to individual states; we are stronger as a nation when we approach issues together.
3
These tax plans would work because they would do exactly what their proponents intend they do: further enrich the wealthiest, beneath the smokescreen of promised economic growth; increase the deficit so that the largest social programs have to be cut (taxes won't be increased, and defense won't be cut); further shrink the federal government, cutting its ability to function and devolving power to the states; and getting votes from inattentive dupes in the Republican base. From the viewpoints of these candidates, most of whom (all?) know exactly what they're saying, what's not to like?
2
And how about an increased gas tax (it could be indexed so that when gas prices go up a certain amount the taxes are reduced again), sin taxes on sugary drinks, candy (causing costs on the health care system). Conservatives like Milton Friedman used to agree with the need to tax negative externalities, like pollution and second-hand smoke -- that cause harm on others. The other necessary tax increases are also obvious -- estates, capital gains, extremely high incomes. Common sense, fairness, a good environment, healthy citizens, and a good society -- what's not to like about these?
2
When Ted Cruz espouses Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, he makes it sound like all of the people whose relatives supposedly came over on the Mayflower. There would have been so very, very many that the ship would have been bigger than Noah's Arc, many times over.
Just remember the strong economy that we had after Bill Clinton raised taxes--back UP to Reagan Era levels. And then, when George W. Bush lowered taxes, the economy moved toward that financial abyss that we heard so much about.
Middle and low income people spend what they receive in tax cuts and that, in turn, creates more jobs--and more tax collections. When the wealthy receive tax cuts, they merely sock it away.
Just look to Europe to see what cutting taxes and reduced government spending will do. The whole continent has been stagnant since 2008.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Just remember the strong economy that we had after Bill Clinton raised taxes--back UP to Reagan Era levels. And then, when George W. Bush lowered taxes, the economy moved toward that financial abyss that we heard so much about.
Middle and low income people spend what they receive in tax cuts and that, in turn, creates more jobs--and more tax collections. When the wealthy receive tax cuts, they merely sock it away.
Just look to Europe to see what cutting taxes and reduced government spending will do. The whole continent has been stagnant since 2008.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
If the result is a zero Estate tax (tell that to a State like NJ which begins their Estate tax rates at $ 675K and tosses in an Inheritance Tax to boot), let their be a wealth tax, that is a tax on the tptal assets of each individual in excess of say $ 1 Million. The rate would be progressive, from 2% to say 10% each year, and this would include all Estates (distribute their assets quicker perhaps) and Trusts. Then one can toss out the Internal Revenue Code in its entirety and cut the lucrative tax breaks for the rich, the earned income credit for the so-called poor and replace it with a 17% consumption tax on every product sold at each level of sale. This would also replace the payroll tax as well. Thus, when one receives their paycheck, only State taxes would be withheld and do not expect those to drop under this plan. The States will then raise their taxes simply because they can. Each individual would be responsible for their own retirement plan. My suggestion would be to take 12.4% and invest it as well as the 2.90% for Medicare tax from each income source but that is up to the individual. Corporate tax rates would top out at 15% but if in excess of a certain amount of $ is held abroad, the rate would increase to levels of 25, 30, and 35% depending on how much is left abroad. The only ones hurt by this could be 501(c)(3) groups but the citizens of this country will continue to provide funds for these organizations simply because people are essentially good.
Love the title of the article, it could just as easily been titled "The Sky is Up" or "2 + 2 = 4" or "Grass is Green". There are basic services the government provides which require money. Without enough money coming in to cover those basic costs, the government will go into debt. We already don't have enough money coming in to cover the costs, so less money coming in will clearly not solve the problem.
Some people argue that we can cut the spending, but the fact is there is really nothing left to cut with the exception of the military, which is of course anathema to republican budgets. There is always taking the food out of the mouths of the starving and the elderly, but these cuts don't actually amount to much in the larger picture and are really just abject cruelty.
Oh, here's another one: "Republicans can stick it where the sun doesn't shine".
Some people argue that we can cut the spending, but the fact is there is really nothing left to cut with the exception of the military, which is of course anathema to republican budgets. There is always taking the food out of the mouths of the starving and the elderly, but these cuts don't actually amount to much in the larger picture and are really just abject cruelty.
Oh, here's another one: "Republicans can stick it where the sun doesn't shine".
6
A key problem is taxing capital gains differently than other income for the basic reason that anytime a particular sort of activity is taxed differently than others a distortion is produced that diverts economic effort and misallocates resources. This is just basic economics. Capital gains can be fairly taxed by advancing the basis investment through time to account for inflation (as is done in Australia), but to otherwise treat investment income the same as any other income. After all we don't task earned income differently based on what the job is.
3
We need asset taxes, a large eastate tax and a flat at a high rate on earnings over $500,000. FDIC, pension insurance, our armed services, courts protecting intellectual property are a few of many tax supported resources that protect wealth. The only correct thought from the Tea Party is that income is taxed enough. We need to tax the low hanging fruit.
2
The answer to getting us out of the mess we are in is full employment. I don't just mean full employment of those who claim to be part of the workforce. I mean employment as well for those poor souls who aren´t currently counted in the workforce because they aren´t actively seeking employment (they've given up or maybe they never tried). And the way back to full employment is the same one that pulled us out of the Great Depression: war. World War II was the ultimate government spending program. Only this time we should declare war on ourselves and not some foreign enemy. We should declare war on our crumbling bridges, our disintegrating roads, our blighted inner cities, our drug addicted citizens, our failing students, etc. Such a war would create a huge demand for goods from the private sector and would create a huge impetus for hiring. And more jobs means more income, more taxes, and the additional government debt at today's interest rates would be totally manageable.
160
There is no question that the republican tax plans are sheer fantasy and if enacted, would turn the US into a larger version of the state of Kansas. The worst economic downturns in American history have all occurred as a result of republican economic policy. The fact that republicans are elected to office higher than local dogcatcher is testament to the deep social and cultural divides in the country.
That said, the democrats demonize the top 10% of wage earners and the top 10% of wealth holders in this country. Routinely. Never do democratic politicians or the NYT editors mention that the top 10% pay ~50% of all federal taxes while the bottom 50% of wage earners pay <10%, closer to 5%. The simple fact is that the wealthy pay for government services consumed by everyone else.
Maybe that's the way it ought to be, considering that a nation is bound by an unwritten social contract whereby potential civil insurrection is tamped down by the mostly shared expectation that a rising tide will lift all boats. So those who prosper the most by the system, eg, the 10%, ought to pay to keep it in place.
Ok, but lets make that an informed discussion. Sequestration actually worked to drive down the deficit. But it's not sustainable. More tax revenue is needed, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss what govt services should be EOL', which should be continued, or new services initiated. This would be a useful discussion. Heck, it's what our govt was designed to do.
That said, the democrats demonize the top 10% of wage earners and the top 10% of wealth holders in this country. Routinely. Never do democratic politicians or the NYT editors mention that the top 10% pay ~50% of all federal taxes while the bottom 50% of wage earners pay <10%, closer to 5%. The simple fact is that the wealthy pay for government services consumed by everyone else.
Maybe that's the way it ought to be, considering that a nation is bound by an unwritten social contract whereby potential civil insurrection is tamped down by the mostly shared expectation that a rising tide will lift all boats. So those who prosper the most by the system, eg, the 10%, ought to pay to keep it in place.
Ok, but lets make that an informed discussion. Sequestration actually worked to drive down the deficit. But it's not sustainable. More tax revenue is needed, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss what govt services should be EOL', which should be continued, or new services initiated. This would be a useful discussion. Heck, it's what our govt was designed to do.
1
For the people who are skeptical of increasing federal revenues 40% in the next ten years, I offer the following federal-income-tax-payment (not Social Security payments) analysis:
2009 - Tax payment $1.103 trillion.
2013 - Tax payment $1.451 trillion.
Percent change: 31.5 (calculated)
Tax payment source: IRS Individual Income Tax Returns 1999-2013.
A federal revenue increase of 31.5% in four years implies a 40% increase in ten years is very doable, especially with a growing economy that provides well paying jobs for Americans, a growing Middle and Working Class with less income and wealth inequality, and a return to a progressive tax system in which secretaries do not pay taxes at a higher rate than their bosses.
2009 - Tax payment $1.103 trillion.
2013 - Tax payment $1.451 trillion.
Percent change: 31.5 (calculated)
Tax payment source: IRS Individual Income Tax Returns 1999-2013.
A federal revenue increase of 31.5% in four years implies a 40% increase in ten years is very doable, especially with a growing economy that provides well paying jobs for Americans, a growing Middle and Working Class with less income and wealth inequality, and a return to a progressive tax system in which secretaries do not pay taxes at a higher rate than their bosses.
5
Anyone who lives in a red state knows that the whole supply side economics is really just a trick to shrink the state government. The say that the revenue will be offset by an oil boom or economic investment, but the moment the boom goes bust, or the investment never happens, they don't jump to bring taxes back up and continue to fund the government, they slash important government programs and departments.
Personally, I blame Grover Norquist, for practically making a litmus test out of his tax pledge for GOP'ers.
For example, here in Oklahoma (not my home state btw) the conservative government has continued to cut mental health funding, they refused to expand medicaid under the ACA (Obamacare), and have refused to give teachers a raise, causing a teacher shortage and forcing schools to hire unqualified teachers or go without teachers at all.
Then when they do have to raise money, they raise sales tax (which affects the poor the most) while letting automatic income tax cuts fall into place.
If you want an example of the non-miracle of voodoo economics, just look at Oklahoma or Kansas.
Personally, I blame Grover Norquist, for practically making a litmus test out of his tax pledge for GOP'ers.
For example, here in Oklahoma (not my home state btw) the conservative government has continued to cut mental health funding, they refused to expand medicaid under the ACA (Obamacare), and have refused to give teachers a raise, causing a teacher shortage and forcing schools to hire unqualified teachers or go without teachers at all.
Then when they do have to raise money, they raise sales tax (which affects the poor the most) while letting automatic income tax cuts fall into place.
If you want an example of the non-miracle of voodoo economics, just look at Oklahoma or Kansas.
18
Someone: while I loath Grover Norquist. I don't blame him. I blame the politicians who buy into his thinking and make the Norquist pledge. If they didn't take the pledge, Norquist wouldn't matter.
1
The Republicans, in various ways over many decades, have used irrational fear of the national debt to gather support among the American population. So, fearing that debt, they propose to perhaps double it and then double again.
When Ronald Reagan came into office at the start of 1981 he proposed to cut taxes (check), raise defense spending dramatically (check) AND balance the budget. Well, two out of three ain't bad, right? There was never a plan to balance the budget, unless the economic magic of tax cuts meant that the economy would grow so fantastically that more revenue would come in with lower taxes (it didn't).
Why are we still hearing this same out-of-tune song sung by a new generation? Because, in the land of magical thinking, belief is more important than fact, lies better than truth, rumor more important than known realities.
Obviously, we can't continue to give back to the mega-rich in the form of tax cuts, tax breaks and loop holes and hope to pay our bills. No one really cares because the plague of short term thinking has descended on us like an out of control Ebola outbreak. Ultimately, we are stealing from our future, robbing some future generation of the stability and greatness the nation has known for many decades, a hundred years or more. We can manage our affairs, but we choose not to.
When Ronald Reagan came into office at the start of 1981 he proposed to cut taxes (check), raise defense spending dramatically (check) AND balance the budget. Well, two out of three ain't bad, right? There was never a plan to balance the budget, unless the economic magic of tax cuts meant that the economy would grow so fantastically that more revenue would come in with lower taxes (it didn't).
Why are we still hearing this same out-of-tune song sung by a new generation? Because, in the land of magical thinking, belief is more important than fact, lies better than truth, rumor more important than known realities.
Obviously, we can't continue to give back to the mega-rich in the form of tax cuts, tax breaks and loop holes and hope to pay our bills. No one really cares because the plague of short term thinking has descended on us like an out of control Ebola outbreak. Ultimately, we are stealing from our future, robbing some future generation of the stability and greatness the nation has known for many decades, a hundred years or more. We can manage our affairs, but we choose not to.
17
GW Bush decreased taxes on the wealthy and spent trillions on a bogus war all under the assumptions that growth would cover the costs. Even in a war economy with Mr. Bush telling everyone 'to just go shopping'. Government debt blossomed with trillions of extra costs not paid for. Republicans blame President Obama for this debt explosion even though under his watch our deficits have decreased drastically. This happened despite the need to prime the economy after GW's bogus policies almost brought the world economy to its knees.
If you want an example of failed Republican policies which Republican candidates are now warming over in these debates we need go no further. Republicans do not speak GW's name because they know this is true and if they were honest everyone else would see it as well. Everyone else that is except Republicans who in their state of denial would not see the failure of their policies if it hit them in the head.
If you want an example of failed Republican policies which Republican candidates are now warming over in these debates we need go no further. Republicans do not speak GW's name because they know this is true and if they were honest everyone else would see it as well. Everyone else that is except Republicans who in their state of denial would not see the failure of their policies if it hit them in the head.
16
This is a poor comment in an otherwise thoughtful editorial: "The reality is that income tax increases can be prudently imposed only on the wealthy at this point, because only they have had meaningful income gains in recent decades." The "gains" in income by the wealthy are not relevant. What is relevant is the amount of surplus money a taxpayer has. By definition, the wealthy have a lot of surplus money and some of this should be returned to the commonwealth, where it came from in the first place. Regardless of whether a wealthy person or family's income goes up or down, if they have far more money than they need, they can afford to share some with others though the Government, not their hand picked charities.
9
I keep hearing everything that is wrong with our candidates and their policies But I'd like to as a question. Can the board tell me the exact number of jobs that were created from the stimulus? We were promised millions of jobs; where are they?
Why has the economy fallen far short of projections the last 3 months?
If the economy is doing so well why has the Fed been unable to raise interest rates?
Isn't a fact that tax revenues were $2.162 trllion in 2010? In 2015 it is $3.176 trillion. In 2020 it is projected to be $4.332 trillion, according to the Tax Polocy Center. It will double in 10 years and Democrats still want to raise taxes. Amazing
In 2013 an article by CNBC stated a CBO report indicated that the top 40% pay 106% of the taxes while the bottom 40% pay a negative 9%. Table 3 on page 13 of the report. The numbers were based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures
Revenues are increasing dramatically. The top 40% pay the lions share of taxes and that's nearly enough for Democrats, You people bane clue idea what fiscal responsibility is. But to create your nanny state you have tax like drumken sailors. Fiscal irresponsibility thy name is Democrat
Why has the economy fallen far short of projections the last 3 months?
If the economy is doing so well why has the Fed been unable to raise interest rates?
Isn't a fact that tax revenues were $2.162 trllion in 2010? In 2015 it is $3.176 trillion. In 2020 it is projected to be $4.332 trillion, according to the Tax Polocy Center. It will double in 10 years and Democrats still want to raise taxes. Amazing
In 2013 an article by CNBC stated a CBO report indicated that the top 40% pay 106% of the taxes while the bottom 40% pay a negative 9%. Table 3 on page 13 of the report. The numbers were based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures
Revenues are increasing dramatically. The top 40% pay the lions share of taxes and that's nearly enough for Democrats, You people bane clue idea what fiscal responsibility is. But to create your nanny state you have tax like drumken sailors. Fiscal irresponsibility thy name is Democrat
1
Yes, the wealthy pay more money in taxes. If you made billions of dollars, shouldn't you be expected to pay more than someone that barely makes it on about $20,000 a year? That doesn't seem mean-spirited to me, especially since the wealthy have tax accountants who help them find lots of lovely loopholes to keep them from losing much of their wealth to the government. And yes, many jobs have been created during the Obama presidency. It's hard to imagine you could have missed that fact, but if you continue to get your information from biased sources, you may never hear the actual facts about lots of things.
15
The Bush years were a model of fiscal irresponsibility and disaster -- choices spearheaded by Bush and Cheney, who famously said "Deficits don't matter" (when it came to the price tag for things that he wanted).
4
Actually, the Republican tax plans do work. The question that needs to be asked, is for whom do they work?
Surprise, surprise - it turns out they all advantage those at the top. The only real difference between them is which plans transfer wealth upwards the fastest - and how much they stick it to everyone else. This isn't a bug; it's a feature and has been ever since Ronald Reagan blessed us with Voodoo Economics.
Three things there are that explain this. One is the overwhelming role of money in elections - the billionaires now have a buyers market, and the GOP candidates have to keep them happy.
Two is Grover Norquist and the pledge to never, ever raise taxes. There's a deluge of pitchforks waiting for any Republican crazy enough to even mention the idea.
Three is that the candidates don't care. They don't care if their plans work because they don't care if government works. They're all running on the article of faith that government does not and can not solve problems. The more they cripple it, the more it reinforces that message. Failure is a win for them.
There's no point in trying to make sense of anything the Republicans are saying until you acknowledge they are all selling snake oil. Paul Krugman laid it all out in his Friday column "Springtime for Grifters" - they are all running scams.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/springtime-for-grifters.html
Surprise, surprise - it turns out they all advantage those at the top. The only real difference between them is which plans transfer wealth upwards the fastest - and how much they stick it to everyone else. This isn't a bug; it's a feature and has been ever since Ronald Reagan blessed us with Voodoo Economics.
Three things there are that explain this. One is the overwhelming role of money in elections - the billionaires now have a buyers market, and the GOP candidates have to keep them happy.
Two is Grover Norquist and the pledge to never, ever raise taxes. There's a deluge of pitchforks waiting for any Republican crazy enough to even mention the idea.
Three is that the candidates don't care. They don't care if their plans work because they don't care if government works. They're all running on the article of faith that government does not and can not solve problems. The more they cripple it, the more it reinforces that message. Failure is a win for them.
There's no point in trying to make sense of anything the Republicans are saying until you acknowledge they are all selling snake oil. Paul Krugman laid it all out in his Friday column "Springtime for Grifters" - they are all running scams.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/springtime-for-grifters.html
21
The question is not why the Republican candidates keep selling the same tax cut nonsense, but why so many millions of people keep buying into it. You would think that people in this country would vote based on results but obviously they don't, just look at the representatives we have in Congress.
A small minority in the House is dictating to the majority and nothing ever gets done and yet they keep winning elections selling their "get rid of government" mantra. I just wonder where people think infrastructure, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Homeland Security, FEMA and all other services that benefit the common good come from if it isn't government.
The latest news is that now the "candidates" want the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin to moderate their next debates. In other words, lets not ask us any really difficult questions because all we want is to be President of the United States and magically take care of all the myriad of problems the nation is facing.
If the people of this country don't start to look at their representatives and demand answers when the inequality is as entrenched as it is, then they will continue to live in an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. The young people who see the reality of the system will stop voting and eventually we will become a typical banana republic with a few very rich individuals and millions of people just struggling to survive.
A small minority in the House is dictating to the majority and nothing ever gets done and yet they keep winning elections selling their "get rid of government" mantra. I just wonder where people think infrastructure, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Homeland Security, FEMA and all other services that benefit the common good come from if it isn't government.
The latest news is that now the "candidates" want the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin to moderate their next debates. In other words, lets not ask us any really difficult questions because all we want is to be President of the United States and magically take care of all the myriad of problems the nation is facing.
If the people of this country don't start to look at their representatives and demand answers when the inequality is as entrenched as it is, then they will continue to live in an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. The young people who see the reality of the system will stop voting and eventually we will become a typical banana republic with a few very rich individuals and millions of people just struggling to survive.
17
For decades now the very wealthy among us have had more than their fair share of tax cuts with the nice big gimmick (thank you, Congress) that mandates they pay only up to $104,000 in Social Security payroll taxes per year. Who can ask for a bigger tax cut then that when earning 2-20 million dollars per year.
The Presidential candidates (with the exception of Bernie Sanders) and the Media must stop perpetuating the lie that Medicare and SoSec are going broke. RAISE THE CAP. This may not raise revenue, since these funds go into a 'lock-box' that supposedly is used for no purpose other than SoSec, however, it will remove a large talking point (in debates) and allow for serious discussion about increasing tax revenues to help this country with its current financial difficulties.
To frighten hard working people the mean and greedy conservatives continue to lie that SoSec will go broke next Tuesday so they can privatize it, pure and simple.
We must be more astute as we listen to the candidates debate the issues in these coming months. We must question why the candidates focus only on tax cuts and more tax cuts as a solution for everything. Much is at stake.
If the Conservatives hate Government so much and want to destroy it (make it so small that you won't know it's there and that it can't function for its people) why are they each fighting so hard to head it as President. Ask why each spews so much hatred for this great government of the United States that is America.
The Presidential candidates (with the exception of Bernie Sanders) and the Media must stop perpetuating the lie that Medicare and SoSec are going broke. RAISE THE CAP. This may not raise revenue, since these funds go into a 'lock-box' that supposedly is used for no purpose other than SoSec, however, it will remove a large talking point (in debates) and allow for serious discussion about increasing tax revenues to help this country with its current financial difficulties.
To frighten hard working people the mean and greedy conservatives continue to lie that SoSec will go broke next Tuesday so they can privatize it, pure and simple.
We must be more astute as we listen to the candidates debate the issues in these coming months. We must question why the candidates focus only on tax cuts and more tax cuts as a solution for everything. Much is at stake.
If the Conservatives hate Government so much and want to destroy it (make it so small that you won't know it's there and that it can't function for its people) why are they each fighting so hard to head it as President. Ask why each spews so much hatred for this great government of the United States that is America.
22
@Rhea Goldman: Agree with you as to the simple solution of saving social security by increasing the payroll cap. It will hardly be felt by those making more than today's top #. However, the problem is that there is NO social security trust--no real separation of monies. Yes, IOUs go into a locked box but what happens is govt spends the $ and has none to repay the IOUs.
1
In the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan fundamentally restructured our tax rates, including broad based tax cuts. This resulted in the most dramatic economic recovery in our lifetime. It also set the stage for the best 25 years of economic growth in the country’s history. During the 25 years that followed, we suffered only one very mild downturn in 1990-1991. Ronald Reagan solidified his tax reform in 1986 by closing many loopholes in the tax code and making the tax structure more rational. The first President Bush and President Clinton both raised taxes about 300 billion dollars, but neither tax increase was particularly significant, affecting the tax code and the economy only at the fringes. The growth of the 1990s had nothing to do with the tax increases; it was driven by dramatic improvements in productivity through automation, all of which was created by private enterprise. Private companies made research and development decisions based on risk and return that were enhanced by the reduction of the tax burden by Ronald Reagan. When Bush and Clinton imposed new taxes, the static analysis of their own administrations predicted deficits for as far as the eye could see. Yet by the end of the nineties, we had achieved a surplus. How did we do this? We did it just as Ronald Reagan predicted we would do it, we outgrew the deficit because of dramatic growth—supply side economics.
1
Ahhh . . . the Republican Reagan recovery fantasy with its familiar supply side economic refrain -- economic growth comes from tax cuts. The economy "recovered" from the stagflation of the 70s in part because President Carter bit the bullet and took significant inflation reducing actions. It grew in part because Reagan brought renewed optimism to the US (this is the real Reagan achievement), and in part because Reagan Era government spending tripled the national debt. Republicans act as if the Reagan tax cuts took place in a vacuum. They didnt. Massive government defense and domestic spending helped jump start and sustain economic growth while piling up, for the time, record debt. He, Bush, and Clinton all raised taxes -- Clinton primarily on the wealthy -- without slowing economic growth and reduced deficits (Clinton's tax cuts actually contributed to a budget surplus). The undoing of many Reagan Era practices created sustained economic growth in the 90s. Then came George W. Bush. Huge tax cuts, military adventures based on false information, regulatory cuts, and the disaster of the 08-09 recession. By comparison, Obama's modest tax increases on the wealthy and economic stimulus turned the recession around, produced sustained growth, and have featured declining deficits since 2010. The new Republican Proposals are not Reaganesque, they are Coolidgesque and would plunge us into an economic tale spin led by upward spiraling deficits and ballooning debt.
4
No downside? The S&L debacle? Reagan raising taxes to cover the deficits? Enron? There was plenty more supply side economic action with Bush 43. How did that turn out? Finally there was the overall and continuing redistribution of wealth upwards. Growth is great unless it lifts only the yachts and leaves to bass boats to founder.
5
This is a fairy tale. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts damaged the economy and dramatically increased both unemployment and an explosively ballooning deficit and national debt. Reagan was forced to acknowledge the failure and agreed to a tax increase. We also know now that his administration ALWAYS knew that tax cuts wouldn't result in growth, but that's what the corporate donors behind him wanted. When his budget director, David Stockman, admitted as much Reagan was furious and "took me to the woodshed". Yet Stockman has never changed his story up till today.
So what DID bring about the recovery? Well, actually it was Jimmy Carter and his prescience combined with the absolute brilliant appointment of Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve. Volcker's policies initially put the nation's economy into a bad place to control inflation, costing Carter re-election, but, like lancing a boil they cleared out many problems allowing growth and a lower interest rate. Reagan got the credit for Volcker's policies despite his tax cuts nearly sinking them. Volcker remained at the Fed for 6 of the 8 years Reagan was in office. Paul Volcker was the unsung hero who saved the economy in the 80's, not Ronald Reagan. Reagan's appointee, Alan Greenspan, destroyed the recovery at the end of the 90's, which GWB then took from a mild downturn into a full-blown recession.
So what DID bring about the recovery? Well, actually it was Jimmy Carter and his prescience combined with the absolute brilliant appointment of Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve. Volcker's policies initially put the nation's economy into a bad place to control inflation, costing Carter re-election, but, like lancing a boil they cleared out many problems allowing growth and a lower interest rate. Reagan got the credit for Volcker's policies despite his tax cuts nearly sinking them. Volcker remained at the Fed for 6 of the 8 years Reagan was in office. Paul Volcker was the unsung hero who saved the economy in the 80's, not Ronald Reagan. Reagan's appointee, Alan Greenspan, destroyed the recovery at the end of the 90's, which GWB then took from a mild downturn into a full-blown recession.
5
The Republican candidates take pains to reassure the extremely comfortable that under no circumstances will they be discommoded in any way. Eliminate Medicare and Social Security? Why not? Won't affect them. Keep the minimum wage minimum? Absolutely. If the working classes want more money, let them work harder, or better yet, get two or three more minimum wage jobs. Lobby for more H-1B visas so foreigners can be trained then displace American citizens' jobs.
So what if the middle and working class is destroyed? Not the problem of the extremely comfortable. They'll hire more guards and beef up security around their gated communities. God forbid they should be discommoded in any way.
So what if the middle and working class is destroyed? Not the problem of the extremely comfortable. They'll hire more guards and beef up security around their gated communities. God forbid they should be discommoded in any way.
19
There are important elements of Republican tax plans which make complete sense, would foster job growth and have a positive effect on tax collections. The most significant of these is substantiallly reducing the US corporate tax rate - the highest in the industrialized world.
Yes - there are a few US international companies - think GE - which through the assiduous use of armies of personnel mange to lower the tax rate - but most don't. In fact the average is about a 25% tax payment vs the stated IRS 35%. Just this week Pfizer made no secret that a prime motivation for buying a foreign company was to grab advantage of Ireland's 10% tax rate. Even Bernie Sanders' favorite socialist country Denmark has a lower rate at 20% - and is seeking to lower it further.
There is an element of Democrat leaders - think Obama - which recoils at any suggestion of giving businesses a break. To them - business leaders are the undeserving enemy. Keep this attitude up and the country will continue to lose great companies to the rest of the world which recognizes the value and jobs these corporations offer its citizens.
Yes - there are a few US international companies - think GE - which through the assiduous use of armies of personnel mange to lower the tax rate - but most don't. In fact the average is about a 25% tax payment vs the stated IRS 35%. Just this week Pfizer made no secret that a prime motivation for buying a foreign company was to grab advantage of Ireland's 10% tax rate. Even Bernie Sanders' favorite socialist country Denmark has a lower rate at 20% - and is seeking to lower it further.
There is an element of Democrat leaders - think Obama - which recoils at any suggestion of giving businesses a break. To them - business leaders are the undeserving enemy. Keep this attitude up and the country will continue to lose great companies to the rest of the world which recognizes the value and jobs these corporations offer its citizens.
Business has done quite well under President Obama, thank you. Check the stock indexes.
13
If you give corporations more tax cuts, they will simply take the money and keep it or give it to the top executives. They are making record profits yet have not hired more people in proportion to the extra money. If they create more jobs at all they are overseas.
3
Or we can bumbled down a pathway of zero growth, as demonstrated by Thursday's numbers. Tax policy has a direct policy of human behavior, and thereby economic activity. Otherwise there would be no "sin" taxes. The Laffer curve applies to everything with an assigned price. Taxes are no differenrent. In order to maximize revenue, the price must be set at the right level.
Capitalism Undermines Human Dignity!
I support the Government supplement the basic human needs of the citizens: health care, education, water, electricity, not the Privatization to the Corporate individuals, which is considered to be socialistic, and I also stated that I believe in Free Enterprise which is a form of Capitalism.
The Government should operate in the best interest of the Citizens, not the Corporations.
The assembly line, automation, computer tech and robotics have eliminated the need for human labor, so now what are citizens/people to do to sustain themselves?
Voluntary workforce would be a humane solution, much like how people serve in the arm forces.
I feel all abled body and stabled mind government assisted / welfare recipient should be obligated to provide some service back into the community.
Working hard was the Christian work ethic value, "By the sweat of your brow you shall earn your keep"; instead of adhering to this concept the Welfare System has recipients and their children expecting something for doing nothing.
Inequity Feeds Khoas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL45pVdsRvE
I support the Government supplement the basic human needs of the citizens: health care, education, water, electricity, not the Privatization to the Corporate individuals, which is considered to be socialistic, and I also stated that I believe in Free Enterprise which is a form of Capitalism.
The Government should operate in the best interest of the Citizens, not the Corporations.
The assembly line, automation, computer tech and robotics have eliminated the need for human labor, so now what are citizens/people to do to sustain themselves?
Voluntary workforce would be a humane solution, much like how people serve in the arm forces.
I feel all abled body and stabled mind government assisted / welfare recipient should be obligated to provide some service back into the community.
Working hard was the Christian work ethic value, "By the sweat of your brow you shall earn your keep"; instead of adhering to this concept the Welfare System has recipients and their children expecting something for doing nothing.
Inequity Feeds Khoas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL45pVdsRvE
It is not just the talk of tax cuts which is disingenuous, it is also the statements that the loss of revenue can be made up thorough eliminating certain deductions.
We have watched for the past 7 years the impossibility of any reform to the tax system by vested interests.
I believe taxes should go up on the wealthiest, but I also think there is a good argument for reducing the corporate tax as few companies pay the full rate, and the US corporate tax is far higher then its competitors. There should be room for some horse trading here.
We have watched for the past 7 years the impossibility of any reform to the tax system by vested interests.
I believe taxes should go up on the wealthiest, but I also think there is a good argument for reducing the corporate tax as few companies pay the full rate, and the US corporate tax is far higher then its competitors. There should be room for some horse trading here.
5
The editorial staff at the New York Times does not understand. The real issue for the United States is how do we sell more goods and services to people outside the United States. There are 6 billion people in the world and only 230 million in the United States. Our economic growth, increased revenue and investment capital, is going to come from people in other Countries buying our stuff.
The next President and the people s/he hires need to be able to raise the economic tide in the United States in order to pay for the huge social programs including Social Security, Medicare, and the Military. This going to happen by reducing taxes, reducing regulations, and creating an environment so that innovation and technological creativity can thrive so that the United States economy can expand by selling more goods and services to other Countries and attracting more investment capital to the United States. In addition, the US has to negotiate better trade deals with every Country including China, Japan, and Mexico so that we have trade surpluses, not deficits.
One has to simply ask which of the Presidential Candidates has the skill set and experience to accomplish this task. I can think of only one and unfortunately he does not play into the New York Times narrative.
The next President and the people s/he hires need to be able to raise the economic tide in the United States in order to pay for the huge social programs including Social Security, Medicare, and the Military. This going to happen by reducing taxes, reducing regulations, and creating an environment so that innovation and technological creativity can thrive so that the United States economy can expand by selling more goods and services to other Countries and attracting more investment capital to the United States. In addition, the US has to negotiate better trade deals with every Country including China, Japan, and Mexico so that we have trade surpluses, not deficits.
One has to simply ask which of the Presidential Candidates has the skill set and experience to accomplish this task. I can think of only one and unfortunately he does not play into the New York Times narrative.
2
Cutting taxes and regulations have been proven to disproportionately benefit upper incomes and lead to a decrease in economic investment.
BTW, the population of the United States is closer to 320 million
BTW, the population of the United States is closer to 320 million
2
I'm confused. I always thought the simple economic question was "Are you better off now than when Obama took office and do you feel safer?". Traditionally, the party of the President received all the blame and/or credit. Initially, Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress and no budget was proposed by the Senate. Also, it was the Democrats & Obama who initiated and pushed for sequestration which the Republicans now like (except for defense) and the Democrats want eliminated. The stock market has done well which has benefitted investors, mostly wealthy but many middle class. Low interest rates have been a driver. As an independent, I think it's time for a change. Hillary use to be the symbol of strong independence but has become too much a sycophant to her party, while both her and Sanders come across to me as snake oil salesmen promising magical cures. I'm skeptical but at least the Republican debates were spirited while the Democratic debate appeared to be more "Hands off Hillary" propaganda. Who will I be better off with and feel safer with in 2020?
2
And the Republicans weren't promising any "magic" cures the other night? Were you actually listening? If they're this clueless on how taxation and spending work, why would I trust any of those "snake oil salesmen/women" with anything else?
19
I think the question to ask is:
Who is having the more open/rational/factual conversation (vs. lock-step demonetization of any other point of view but their own)?
Who is having the more open/rational/factual conversation (vs. lock-step demonetization of any other point of view but their own)?
1
A few decades ago interest rates were high.
Many wealthy people received a lot of interest income.
This produced a lot of income tax.
Now, interest rates are very low, so interest income is small.
Those who used to receive a lot of interest income, and who were taxed accordingly, don't, thereby avoiding the taxes they used to pay.
A wealth tax would recapture some of that, wouldn't it.
Many wealthy people received a lot of interest income.
This produced a lot of income tax.
Now, interest rates are very low, so interest income is small.
Those who used to receive a lot of interest income, and who were taxed accordingly, don't, thereby avoiding the taxes they used to pay.
A wealth tax would recapture some of that, wouldn't it.
3
What? An admission by the NYT's that interest rates are going up and the corresponding interest on $18 trillion of debt must be paid? The size and scope of government is completely out of control. The cost imposed by increasing government regulation is enormous. Fraud and waste alone would fund many countries economic needs. Just one example, Obamacare, the signature D program for which they must claim 100% ownership is well on the way to complete collapse. The problem isn't with taxes, it's spending. Proposing trillions more in government spending will not help the problem but when buying votes is how you get elected there really aren't many options available. Every dollar of new taxation results in about $1.25 of new government spending regardless of the source. It's the spending, s------, and electing politicians whose primary objective is to increase government spending will only make the problem worse. Why not talk about the real problem?
3
Interest paid on the debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund helps to pay for Social security.
As long as public debt service costs are covered by rising revenue from interest paid to citizens from all sources, rising interest rates are not a problem for government.
As long as public debt service costs are covered by rising revenue from interest paid to citizens from all sources, rising interest rates are not a problem for government.
1
1. Most of that huge government consists of entitlement programs that pay back tax moneys to elderly or disabled citizens. Most of the rest is military spending, which the private sector cannot & should not take over. (Imagine the little street wars between Google and Apple, Goldman and Citi.)
2. Obamacare involves surprisingly little government spending. It is a system of private insurance plans, paid for by customers and generating profits for the industry. All the government does is to subsidize less affluent people on the market and keep the marketplace functioning. People like me would rather have a government-run plan (like every other developed nation on earth), but ours is a more capitalist society.
3. Yes, government probably is more wasteful spender than the private sector. But the private sector is way more corrupt. Without government, it would be even more so.
2. Obamacare involves surprisingly little government spending. It is a system of private insurance plans, paid for by customers and generating profits for the industry. All the government does is to subsidize less affluent people on the market and keep the marketplace functioning. People like me would rather have a government-run plan (like every other developed nation on earth), but ours is a more capitalist society.
3. Yes, government probably is more wasteful spender than the private sector. But the private sector is way more corrupt. Without government, it would be even more so.
3
We are talking about the real problem. When the republicans were sane, THEY were the ones who demanded the rich pay a bigger share. And we built the middle class on that, and the high union membership. We have gone backwards as a country since we were fooled by the B grade actor and the nonsense called trickle down.
While it's unlikely that tax cuts now would pay for themselves, it should be remembered that JFK's tax cut (passed in 1964) actually produced an increase in revenues. However, in today's economy that probably wouldn't happen.
The US is caught between Scylla and Charybdis; it cannot close the deficit hole with new taxes, given that the economy is surviving on zero interest rates and the Fed printing money, while at the same time it cannot actually pay for the world's largest defense budget plus very expensive entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This fiscal legerdemain can go on only because the dollar is the world's reserve currency, and we can therefore print money to pay our debts.
Increased taxes on the one percent or even the five percent won't solve the problem. A broad-based tax increase on the middle class will almost certainly tank the economy. The only way out is to slash government spending, including (indeed, especially) for defense and entitlement programs. The US will survive if it withdraws from most of its overseas bases, and stops trying to police places like Syria and Ukraine. As for entitlements, anyone who lives for 5 years after he or she starts collecting Social Security is no longer receiving earned benefits; what they've paid in has already come back to them with compound interest. Young people should not be forced to pay more to keep seniors' benefits high. Radically reducing government spending
is the only way out.
The US is caught between Scylla and Charybdis; it cannot close the deficit hole with new taxes, given that the economy is surviving on zero interest rates and the Fed printing money, while at the same time it cannot actually pay for the world's largest defense budget plus very expensive entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This fiscal legerdemain can go on only because the dollar is the world's reserve currency, and we can therefore print money to pay our debts.
Increased taxes on the one percent or even the five percent won't solve the problem. A broad-based tax increase on the middle class will almost certainly tank the economy. The only way out is to slash government spending, including (indeed, especially) for defense and entitlement programs. The US will survive if it withdraws from most of its overseas bases, and stops trying to police places like Syria and Ukraine. As for entitlements, anyone who lives for 5 years after he or she starts collecting Social Security is no longer receiving earned benefits; what they've paid in has already come back to them with compound interest. Young people should not be forced to pay more to keep seniors' benefits high. Radically reducing government spending
is the only way out.
2
@Jon Harrison
Poultney, VT
Largely nonsense. Contrary to the assertion made here raising taxes modestly on the top 5% by increasing top marginal rates, closing some of the more egregious loopholes like the carried interest exemption, and raising the FICA cap essentially solves the problem when combined with a clampdown on corporate tax avoidance strategies. The current federal income tax take is around 17% which is a bit below the average since the war and needs to rise to about 20%. It's not without pain but it wouldn't tank the economy.
Poultney, VT
Largely nonsense. Contrary to the assertion made here raising taxes modestly on the top 5% by increasing top marginal rates, closing some of the more egregious loopholes like the carried interest exemption, and raising the FICA cap essentially solves the problem when combined with a clampdown on corporate tax avoidance strategies. The current federal income tax take is around 17% which is a bit below the average since the war and needs to rise to about 20%. It's not without pain but it wouldn't tank the economy.
23
@ Jon Harrison
Some calculations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-incr...
Some calculations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-incr...
5
I will try one more time to reply. Raising taxes on the 1 percent (which, by the way, is okay with me) does not close the current deficit. Even if it did, the current deficit is artificially low, because interest rates are so low. Borrowing costs will expand dramatically when interest rates rise, which they eventually will (a permanent, close to zero interest rate implies a moribund or declining economy). Additionally, the seriousness of our fiscal situation has been partly veiled by past "borrowing" from the Social Security trust fund. The budgetary outlook after about 2020 is very serious, and taxing the rich will not solve the problem.
We can certainly tax our way to fiscal stability (if not health) by broad-based tax increases, but in the current, consumption-based economy, this would likely produce a downturn in economic activity. Such a downturn would be disastrous, particularly since the current economy is "prosperous" due almost entirely to zero interest rates and Fed money printing.
Another consideration, which of course never occurs to the typical Times reader, is the whether the government should be taking a third or a half of someone's earnings. When the income tax became law in 1913, some people urged that a 10 percent cap be instituted. But a 10 percent tax rate was thought to be absurd; it would never go that high, and so the matter was dropped. Yet here we are discussing a 45 percent rate. And of course in the past the rate was as high as 90 percent.
We can certainly tax our way to fiscal stability (if not health) by broad-based tax increases, but in the current, consumption-based economy, this would likely produce a downturn in economic activity. Such a downturn would be disastrous, particularly since the current economy is "prosperous" due almost entirely to zero interest rates and Fed money printing.
Another consideration, which of course never occurs to the typical Times reader, is the whether the government should be taking a third or a half of someone's earnings. When the income tax became law in 1913, some people urged that a 10 percent cap be instituted. But a 10 percent tax rate was thought to be absurd; it would never go that high, and so the matter was dropped. Yet here we are discussing a 45 percent rate. And of course in the past the rate was as high as 90 percent.
1
1. Basically federal taxes are bad for the economy of the private sector. They take money from the private sector, and put it in the federal sector which doesn't need it because the FED can print as much money as the public sector needs.
2. On the other hand, if the tax money is immediately spent back into the private sector, little harm is done and in the process we get things like the FAA, FDA, an army, NIH, Social Security, etc., etc., etc.
3. Another benefit of taxes is that it can make money more useful. If Joe the gardener has a buck, he will spend it on food, housing, clothes for his kids, etc. thus providing money for businesses to hire more people and pay better wages. If Daddy Warbucks has a buck, he is less likely to spend it, but more likely to either leave it in his basement or, even worse, speculate with it. One can tax Daddy and use the money to pay Joe to cut the White House lawn.
4. BUT this process does not add any NEW money to the private sector which constantly needs new money as the population grows, the dollar loses value, and, in general, the per capita GDP grows. Unless we have a large trade balance, this new money can only come through federal deficit spending; the government must spend more than it takes in.
5. Every time we have ignored 4. and eliminated deficits for more than 3 years we have fallen into a major depression.
6. This means the debt must continue to grow. From 1946 to 1973, we increased the debt 75% and enjoyed Great Prosperity.
2. On the other hand, if the tax money is immediately spent back into the private sector, little harm is done and in the process we get things like the FAA, FDA, an army, NIH, Social Security, etc., etc., etc.
3. Another benefit of taxes is that it can make money more useful. If Joe the gardener has a buck, he will spend it on food, housing, clothes for his kids, etc. thus providing money for businesses to hire more people and pay better wages. If Daddy Warbucks has a buck, he is less likely to spend it, but more likely to either leave it in his basement or, even worse, speculate with it. One can tax Daddy and use the money to pay Joe to cut the White House lawn.
4. BUT this process does not add any NEW money to the private sector which constantly needs new money as the population grows, the dollar loses value, and, in general, the per capita GDP grows. Unless we have a large trade balance, this new money can only come through federal deficit spending; the government must spend more than it takes in.
5. Every time we have ignored 4. and eliminated deficits for more than 3 years we have fallen into a major depression.
6. This means the debt must continue to grow. From 1946 to 1973, we increased the debt 75% and enjoyed Great Prosperity.
10
@ Len CharlapIf; Daddy Warbucks has a buck, he is less likely to spend it, but more likely to either leave it in his basement or, even worse, speculate with it.
And what do you think the speculation does. Hint, either it goes into an existing business to help it grow(you know hire more folks), or it goes into someone wanting to start a new business (again, you know hire folks to do the work)
Funny how a thriving economy works, isn't it?
And what do you think the speculation does. Hint, either it goes into an existing business to help it grow(you know hire more folks), or it goes into someone wanting to start a new business (again, you know hire folks to do the work)
Funny how a thriving economy works, isn't it?
Taxation and spending is a money-pump. Government has typically spent its revenue before it even books it, so it has the fastest money velocity in the economy.
Don't you think that debt will eventually need to be paid off, or can we keep a running debt forever and just pay off the interest? If spending continues without some kind of braking system, someday the interest will be more than we can cover.
There are several sources for tax revenue: wealth, unearned income, earned income, and spending.
The GOP plan is to eliminate all taxes on wealth ("repeal the death tax") and unearned income (no taxes on capital gains and no or low taxes on dividends and interest). For earned income, essentially a flat tax, so that the minimum wage worker and the hedge fund manager pay the same percentage. And for spending, impose a value added tax (a national sales tax) on everything. (Of course, as the poor and middle class spend essentially 100% of their incomes, while the rich do not, this is a tax that falls, in a percentage basis, on those with lower incomes.)
So the Robin Hood Republicans want to steal from the poor to give to the rich! But many of their supporters, who would be hurt by this, simply do not understand the class war that has been underway since 1981.
The GOP plan is to eliminate all taxes on wealth ("repeal the death tax") and unearned income (no taxes on capital gains and no or low taxes on dividends and interest). For earned income, essentially a flat tax, so that the minimum wage worker and the hedge fund manager pay the same percentage. And for spending, impose a value added tax (a national sales tax) on everything. (Of course, as the poor and middle class spend essentially 100% of their incomes, while the rich do not, this is a tax that falls, in a percentage basis, on those with lower incomes.)
So the Robin Hood Republicans want to steal from the poor to give to the rich! But many of their supporters, who would be hurt by this, simply do not understand the class war that has been underway since 1981.
90
These are great points, John Graubard. How is it that you explain it so succinctly, yet I haven't heard a single Democrat running for President lay it out in such clear and easy to understand language? Not just in this campaign, but all previous ones, too.
We should increase the inheritance tax with provisions to protect relatively small family owned businesses. Income taxes should reflect the need to assess the increases the wealthiest have gained in the past three decades, and to balance the cost of government and the benefits offered working people. Social Security should be saved and perhaps expanded by taxing all income. The same is true for Medicare.
Income taxes are not the only revenue stream that should be addressed. Most working people have their homes as their primary asset, this real estate is taxed annually, but other assets are not. Perhaps we should consider an asset tax on all assets over a certain value. Why should someone have to pay annual taxes on their ranch house, while a Renoir hanging in a mansion is not.
Tax breaks are offered to homeowners to reduce the burden of real property taxes and mortgage interest. We should cap these and all deductions at a level to protect the typical homeowner while stopping the subsidy of mansions. While we are at it, let us take deductions away from second family homes, including yachts and RVs. There is no justification for tax subsidies for second homes when we have so many who have no home.
Our tax structures should reflect the goal of income equality and access to necessary programs to support a reasonable life style, including affordable education, decent health care and a safe retirement.
Income taxes are not the only revenue stream that should be addressed. Most working people have their homes as their primary asset, this real estate is taxed annually, but other assets are not. Perhaps we should consider an asset tax on all assets over a certain value. Why should someone have to pay annual taxes on their ranch house, while a Renoir hanging in a mansion is not.
Tax breaks are offered to homeowners to reduce the burden of real property taxes and mortgage interest. We should cap these and all deductions at a level to protect the typical homeowner while stopping the subsidy of mansions. While we are at it, let us take deductions away from second family homes, including yachts and RVs. There is no justification for tax subsidies for second homes when we have so many who have no home.
Our tax structures should reflect the goal of income equality and access to necessary programs to support a reasonable life style, including affordable education, decent health care and a safe retirement.
124
By definition, a small family-owned business will not be subject to inheritance taxes; multi-million-dollar family-owned businesses will.
1
I would add protection from the estate tax of family and small farms, as well as making the property tax more in line with the value of income vs costs. Many are taxed on their development sales value, especially in areas near high value real estate, which often makes the farm property completely impossible to keep or make a living from, and only apply the tax when the property is actually sold as opposed to passed down.
3
Typical liberla response from someone who probably doesn't have a lot of money but feels it necessary to tax and tax again those that do.
I watched the Boulder debates and the principals in the debate and members of the Senate when they discussed their opposition to the Budget Deal, and I did not detect that any member had an understanding of macroeconomics, or tax policy. I gave them all a grade of F for what they said. Of course they may understand the tax code, the role it plays in the economy and how we could achieve a better standard of living, but they did not reveal it in their statements.
I suggest that tax rates, tax expenditures (deductions, exclusions, etc) are not even close to being fair and probably are the major contributing factor to the increasing gap between the top 20 percent and the rest of the people and the poor performance of the economy. The current tax code is not fair in the preferences gained to give an advantage of one industry over another in the national mix of services and products.
One of the most egregiously unfair provisions of the tax code is the cap on social security deductions. Everyone knows that it is not fair and it should be eliminated.
To help candidates out, I suggest the tax code and its critically important impact on the economy should be reworked by an independent commission to create a model code that could be explained in terms of its fairness, impact on the economy and its impact on US performance in the global economy. Then the model code could be examined by all candidates and they could agree or disagree on the code's provisions to the public.
I suggest that tax rates, tax expenditures (deductions, exclusions, etc) are not even close to being fair and probably are the major contributing factor to the increasing gap between the top 20 percent and the rest of the people and the poor performance of the economy. The current tax code is not fair in the preferences gained to give an advantage of one industry over another in the national mix of services and products.
One of the most egregiously unfair provisions of the tax code is the cap on social security deductions. Everyone knows that it is not fair and it should be eliminated.
To help candidates out, I suggest the tax code and its critically important impact on the economy should be reworked by an independent commission to create a model code that could be explained in terms of its fairness, impact on the economy and its impact on US performance in the global economy. Then the model code could be examined by all candidates and they could agree or disagree on the code's provisions to the public.
11
How many decades of hard historical evidence is required to show that cutting taxes always reduces government revenue? The big payoff has never happened.
About half of the nation only pays FICA taxes to the federal government. How is cutting their taxes going to increase GDP if they don't pay any income tax in the first place? The top 1/3 is carrying the load. The top 0.1% has been given a pass.
If all earnings are taxed at 20%, and a one trillion dollar tax cut is put in place, earnings must grow by 5 trillion to pay for it. That means GDP must rise by 10 trillion, which is nearly a 60% rise. Current annual GDP growth is around 2 to 3%. The required increase would take so many decades that the deficit would skyrocket beyond all sense of proportion.
The arguments presented by the GOP can be destroyed by a few simple calculations because they are so preposterous. The desired results relative to the massive losses are so out of balance that they cannot be considered as being anything more than the rants of extreme ignorance.
About half of the nation only pays FICA taxes to the federal government. How is cutting their taxes going to increase GDP if they don't pay any income tax in the first place? The top 1/3 is carrying the load. The top 0.1% has been given a pass.
If all earnings are taxed at 20%, and a one trillion dollar tax cut is put in place, earnings must grow by 5 trillion to pay for it. That means GDP must rise by 10 trillion, which is nearly a 60% rise. Current annual GDP growth is around 2 to 3%. The required increase would take so many decades that the deficit would skyrocket beyond all sense of proportion.
The arguments presented by the GOP can be destroyed by a few simple calculations because they are so preposterous. The desired results relative to the massive losses are so out of balance that they cannot be considered as being anything more than the rants of extreme ignorance.
11
I am sure each one of the candidates would decry the abismal state of education in America and the lack of patriotism on the part of liberals America, behold your leadership.
It wasn't liberals that cut funding to education, that would be conservatives. It isn't liberals denigrating teachers, again, that would be conservatives. You want better education? Quit voting republican, they are destroying education in their attempts to privatize.
5
You forget that the GOP candidates also call for closing down the departments of education, the EPA (which they claim is 'redundant' since states have their own), and eventually the IRS. So, they will save paying all those hated "government workers" (who are, for the most part, simply middle-class working stiffs like the rest of us) and save by not having all those pesky regulations to enforce.
Add to that all of that lazy, undeserving, easily deceived 47% who are living on government programs. The GOP will show these naive (mostly dark-skinned) folk that the evil liberals have been leading them down the primrose path of government benefits (keeping them "down on the plantation"), but the GOP will teach them that they too can be self-sufficient, productive citizens who will, then, in undying gratitude, vote Republican. Thus, all spending on welfare, food stamps, WIC, section 8, Medicaid, and unemployment will be eliminated... or so the fairy-tale goes.
Add to that all of that lazy, undeserving, easily deceived 47% who are living on government programs. The GOP will show these naive (mostly dark-skinned) folk that the evil liberals have been leading them down the primrose path of government benefits (keeping them "down on the plantation"), but the GOP will teach them that they too can be self-sufficient, productive citizens who will, then, in undying gratitude, vote Republican. Thus, all spending on welfare, food stamps, WIC, section 8, Medicaid, and unemployment will be eliminated... or so the fairy-tale goes.
27
Anne-Marie Hislop - "... but the GOP will teach them that they too can be self-sufficient, productive citizens"
Perhaps, just perhaps, the removing of the 11 to 20 million illegal "immigrants" working illegally in the US will free up jobs for those kept "down on the plantation" by government benefits and give them the opportunity to work for their self esteem. What's your plan for helping these people?
Perhaps, just perhaps, the removing of the 11 to 20 million illegal "immigrants" working illegally in the US will free up jobs for those kept "down on the plantation" by government benefits and give them the opportunity to work for their self esteem. What's your plan for helping these people?
They are all total fantasy that will add trillions to the debt but as your resident Republican "Intellectual" David Brooks pointed out we don't need to get too worked up about the details. In the same vein of Republican hypocrisy these candidates are proposing to send deficits through the roof but are currently railing against raising the debt ceiling. Like reality math has a liberal bias.
27
"Responsible policy for the near term demands tax increases on individuals and sectors that can bear them. There is no room or rationale for across-the-board tax cuts, no matter what the Republican candidates say."
But remember the GOP drones live in an alternate universe where trickle-down economics works, the rich get richer, and the poor . . . well, they just stay poor and eat cake.
But remember the GOP drones live in an alternate universe where trickle-down economics works, the rich get richer, and the poor . . . well, they just stay poor and eat cake.
16
Forget the cake, the poor can just revert to the hunter gatherer model. After all isn't everyone supposed to have a concealed weapon after the GOP wins. The strong eat, the weak are eaten.
2
The GOP tax cuts do "work" if by working you mean purposely running deficits so that the only choice is to slash Social Security, Medicare and other social programs.
Paul Krugman's column explains:i
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html
"The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending….
Paul Krugman's column explains:i
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html
"The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending….
124
FINALLY, the New York Times has brought to the forefront the fraud of cutting federal taxes to ease the debt burden on future generation to the forefront.
The NY Times now needs to drill down into this fraud with its own conclusion presenting the reasoning behind its own conclusion and force the Republican candidates to present their own.
It is unbelieveable that anyone except an ignoramus, a fool or a crook can swallow the VOO DOO economics of the Republican Party hook, line and sinker.
The NY Times now needs to drill down into this fraud with its own conclusion presenting the reasoning behind its own conclusion and force the Republican candidates to present their own.
It is unbelieveable that anyone except an ignoramus, a fool or a crook can swallow the VOO DOO economics of the Republican Party hook, line and sinker.
145
Like John Huntsman last time, Kasich is the only realistic one. He accepted the ACA and has worked in congress. 50% is about right for the wealthy, like when JFK lowered it from 90% under the GOP president Eisenhower-he built the highways. Scandinavia is about that rate. This is what the moderators should have been questioning the GOP candidates.
32
Kasich wants to lower corporate and individual tax rates but recognizes that something has to offset it. He famously said people want tax cuts but when it comes to paying for them protest, "Don't tax me. Tax the guy behind the tree.' " One of his proposed offsets is closing loopholes. Others are tax increases elsewhere.
Can't do math? DOH! Welcome to America's plan for the 21st century.
11
"All of these candidates deny fiscal reality. In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even, per capita, with inflation and population growth. Additional revenues will be needed to pay for health care for the elderly, transportation systems and other obligations, as well as for newer challenges, including climate change. And interest on the national debt will surely rise because interest rates have nowhere to go but up."
Liberals call for tax increases. Wow. I'm so surprised.
By the way, our current inflation rate is 0.0% and our historic population growth is about 0.7% per yr. So how do you get to a 40% jump just for inflation and population growth ? The biggest part of our federal budget (and the fastest growing) is health care at $1.1 tn (28%). So what do we do ? Add another entitlement - Obamacare.
Here's a thought. Instead of continually adding programs which cost money we don't have, why not reduce our spending (which we finally did in 2012 thanks to the Sequestor) ? It's not like taxes are low. Taxes just increased $500 bn between 2013 and 2015 and are now above historic averages (18.5% of GDP). Time to live within our means.
One more thing: "And interest on the national debt will surely rise because interest rates have nowhere to go but up." If you want to limit interest expense, maybe we should try to limit our federal debt which is now $18.4 tn or 102% of GDP !
Liberals call for tax increases. Wow. I'm so surprised.
By the way, our current inflation rate is 0.0% and our historic population growth is about 0.7% per yr. So how do you get to a 40% jump just for inflation and population growth ? The biggest part of our federal budget (and the fastest growing) is health care at $1.1 tn (28%). So what do we do ? Add another entitlement - Obamacare.
Here's a thought. Instead of continually adding programs which cost money we don't have, why not reduce our spending (which we finally did in 2012 thanks to the Sequestor) ? It's not like taxes are low. Taxes just increased $500 bn between 2013 and 2015 and are now above historic averages (18.5% of GDP). Time to live within our means.
One more thing: "And interest on the national debt will surely rise because interest rates have nowhere to go but up." If you want to limit interest expense, maybe we should try to limit our federal debt which is now $18.4 tn or 102% of GDP !
7
Rank the developed developed countries by their level of taxation, and then rank them by quality of life.
Rank the states with higher taxation, then rank them by quality of life.
Places with well-funded governments are simply better places to live.
That's really the only argument required. Any descent into dogmatic free market silliness is just a billionaire-funded distraction aimed at helping the 1 percent live large.
Rank the states with higher taxation, then rank them by quality of life.
Places with well-funded governments are simply better places to live.
That's really the only argument required. Any descent into dogmatic free market silliness is just a billionaire-funded distraction aimed at helping the 1 percent live large.
9
Thank you Princeton. Most of the commenters are such die hard liberals and, of course the editorial board is completely bogus. With that said, I don't know why the discussion isn't focused on reducing the debt and growing the job market. Why is it always increase taxes? I actually could live with a tax increase but it would gave to be part of a complete redo of our tax system as well as part of a debt reduction and job growth strategy.amazing that the times and the libs r so one dimensional as if raising taxes is the magic cure for all of our economic ills.
When will Conservatives recognize reality: You cannot NOT increase the debt limit as long as the Federal budget has a deficit. Period.
President Obama has cut the annual deficit he inherited from Bush from $1.4 trillion to under $500 billion. But there hasn't been a budget surplus since Bush wildly spent it down in the summer of 2001, just ahead of 9/11. Borrowing trillions off the books for two wars and then cutting taxes further made it worse.
Yet the GOP wants to cut taxes more which will increase the deficit more, then make up for that by destroying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and, of course, the hated ACA.
For 35 years the GOP has pushed the Laffer Curve, despite all empirical evidence indicating that we haven't been above the Laffer Curve's turning point since the highest tax rate dropped from 90% to 50% almost 55 years ago. Once you're below the turning point, every tax reduction will reduce revenue more than growth can compensate. Even Arthur Laffer knows that.
President Obama has cut the annual deficit he inherited from Bush from $1.4 trillion to under $500 billion. But there hasn't been a budget surplus since Bush wildly spent it down in the summer of 2001, just ahead of 9/11. Borrowing trillions off the books for two wars and then cutting taxes further made it worse.
Yet the GOP wants to cut taxes more which will increase the deficit more, then make up for that by destroying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and, of course, the hated ACA.
For 35 years the GOP has pushed the Laffer Curve, despite all empirical evidence indicating that we haven't been above the Laffer Curve's turning point since the highest tax rate dropped from 90% to 50% almost 55 years ago. Once you're below the turning point, every tax reduction will reduce revenue more than growth can compensate. Even Arthur Laffer knows that.
5
"all make big and broad cuts, mostly to benefit the wealthiest Americans"
Of course they do - this is representing their constituancy. It is beyond me how so many Americans think any of these folks have their interests in mind.
Of course they do - this is representing their constituancy. It is beyond me how so many Americans think any of these folks have their interests in mind.
81
When is a better time to tax someone than when they die?
I just don't get the desire to end the estate tax (or death tax, or whatever you want to call it).
I just don't get the desire to end the estate tax (or death tax, or whatever you want to call it).
39
If you're building a dynasty and you're rich, tax free inheritance is the way to do it.
2
Wealthy toffs who can't face their own mortality and thus wish to live on through their children
1
We should counter that "death tax" nonsense by relabeling it the anti aristocracy tax.
3
Venting is not planning.
6
Of course the Republican candidates have a rationale for tax cuts..........as was aptly demonstrated by Bush JR, anyone can be President if you just promise tax cuts to get votes and campaign money.
30
I find it increasingly bizarre that those people who a Democrat majority would serve best--the American white middle class--support GOP "policies" that benefit corporations and the very rich. So very strange.
126
Face it. As someone of Medicare age, it is my observation that, the older my peers get, the stupider they become. There is a reason why senior citizens are targeted by con men and fraudsters.
98
Maybe they are looking at the last 8 years and recognizing that big government hasn't been all that interested in the middle class. It does, however, love the poor, Hispanics, gays, etc. While it has worked to promote the interests of Identity groups, the middle class has been left with low-paying job creation (touted as a "success") and rising health insurance premiums (also touted as a "success").
Meanwhile the tax structure that advantages the very wealthy has remained untouched, all the while democrats complain about "income inequality". The middle class also realize that proposals like Sanders' with large tax increases will likely hit the middle class. Again.
Meanwhile the tax structure that advantages the very wealthy has remained untouched, all the while democrats complain about "income inequality". The middle class also realize that proposals like Sanders' with large tax increases will likely hit the middle class. Again.
2
Lots of money to be made by the political class. Latch on to a sugar daddy like Rubio , Walker and others and y0ou too can become as rich as a well connected TV evangelist through gifts showered on you by the moneyed men or corrupt government kick-backs. Then like Walker in Wisconsin have your friends in the legislature change the law that permits enquiries into your financial skull-doggery. Capitols turned into giant casinos.
5
And will anyone hold Ted Cruz's feet to the fire to specify how he will make tax returns fit on a postcard and, as he hurriedly added, abolish the IRS. Those half-baked comments got applause and no serious questioning.
84
Republican tax plans will work just the way they want them to. Increase the share of the nation's wealth held by the very rich, and stick it to everyone else.
48
Looking at the picture accompanying this article, CNBC's tone-deaf slogan, "Your Money, Your Vote", is just so apropos.
10
that is hilarious! (in a sad sort of way). I hadn't noticed that, thanks for pointing it out. "Your Money Your Vote" - what the heck does that mean? Give us money and we'll count your vote, the more money the more votes you get. Maybe it isn't so tone-deaf after all...!
1
These plans will work fine provided the Republicans repeal the law of arithmetic.
45
Bruce, Thanks For a laugh in this mess!
2
First, every economic indicator is stronger under Democratic policies - in fact, with taxes at an all-time low, business should be booming in America, according to the GOP. But, it's not. Fools. The economy works best when the poor and the middle-class have more to spend on goods and services. They are, in fact, the job creators. The rich are not - they are instead simply the wealth hoarders.
221
The Republicans lack all candor. Cutting taxes to raise revenues is pie in the sky. The Editorial Board is better, but not good enough. There is no way to increase tax revenues by 40% solely by taxing the wealthy. Half of income taxes are paid by the middle and upper middle class. There simply is no way to raise revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars without raising middle class taxes. It is time for the Republicans to stop talking tax nonsense. It is time for the Democrats to tell the hard truth.
12
Right you are.
Please, someone start hammering away discussing our nation's very serious problems.
I know there are many out there who do not want to hear this but here goes. We will ALL have to sacrifice financially in the future. Yes, even the elderly through some small but important cuts. Repeat small.
And so sadly, even the wealthy will have to give up some of their income for the betterment of our nation. I know it is hard and I can hear the moans and gnashing of teeth now.
Please, someone start hammering away discussing our nation's very serious problems.
I know there are many out there who do not want to hear this but here goes. We will ALL have to sacrifice financially in the future. Yes, even the elderly through some small but important cuts. Repeat small.
And so sadly, even the wealthy will have to give up some of their income for the betterment of our nation. I know it is hard and I can hear the moans and gnashing of teeth now.
1
With apologies to Bill Clinton, I can explain why the Republican tax plans won't work in one word: Arithmetic.
26
The Republican nominees don't believe in science, logic or fact-based reality. What makes you think they would be good at math?
164
lol, *all* republican ideas are bad ideas!...but their tax ideas are one of the more transparently repugnant: basically, take money away from everyone who is not rich, and give that money to the rich. they know it, and they don't care, because at heart they are motivated by greed, and animus toward the american people and american government. a political pox on their houses.
37
So basically the article is saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too. But don't we all know that?
13
Apparently quite a few don't know that
That "Reverse Robinhood" belief the Republicans love, helping the rich at the expense of the poor. And it gets not only applause, but votes.
48
I'm surprised that none of these "fantasy-island" candidates aren't reprising Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan. Remember that one? It's as if Sarah Palin is the economic adviser for these lost souls.
33
Tens of millions of American voters believe them all.
An unstoppable tsunami of stupid is overwhelming America.
An unstoppable tsunami of stupid is overwhelming America.
91
Just think of the synergies of the Republican plan. Cut Medicare, seniors will live shorter. Seniors living shorter, fewer monthly Social Security checks per recipient. Less Social Security per month, the less seniors will spend on their own health care out of pocket.
The spending cuts will have multiplier effects far beyond the initial cuts. Its the only area where voodoo economics actually work.
The spending cuts will have multiplier effects far beyond the initial cuts. Its the only area where voodoo economics actually work.
23
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/dynamic-scoring-once-again/....
" Supporters of the tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration often state that since the aggregate dollar amount of federal revenue was higher in 2006 than it was in 2000, this is proof that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. (Revenue was well below its 2000 level from 2001 to 2005.)
This assertion is so ridiculous it hardly needs rebuttal, but since one still hears it, let me say that inflation raises nominal revenue and the economy generally grows over time whether taxes are cut or not. To observe that the nominal dollar amount of revenue is higher many years after a tax cut occurred tells us absolutely nothing about the revenue effects of that tax cut.
A better method would be to look at federal revenue as a share of gross domestic product. On this basis, the Bush tax cuts are still reducing federal revenue, which has yet to come close to where it was in 2000."
" Supporters of the tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration often state that since the aggregate dollar amount of federal revenue was higher in 2006 than it was in 2000, this is proof that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. (Revenue was well below its 2000 level from 2001 to 2005.)
This assertion is so ridiculous it hardly needs rebuttal, but since one still hears it, let me say that inflation raises nominal revenue and the economy generally grows over time whether taxes are cut or not. To observe that the nominal dollar amount of revenue is higher many years after a tax cut occurred tells us absolutely nothing about the revenue effects of that tax cut.
A better method would be to look at federal revenue as a share of gross domestic product. On this basis, the Bush tax cuts are still reducing federal revenue, which has yet to come close to where it was in 2000."
41
Let's hope that the Democrats seize the issue and talk about what's really at stake and it's a moral issue: Do we want to invest in our country or not? That means do we want to invest in our families, schools, neighborhoods, communities, towns, public safety, and so on. I remember being so proud when I got my first job at age 15 and could pay taxes because I could now be an investor. And that's the argument that needs to be made not only to us average folks but to the very rich as well as the corporations who are all looking to avoid paying their fair share.
59
As a fiscally-conservative Republican I am finding it difficult to imagine voting for any of these pretenders to the Presidency. The math does not work and experience, from the Reagan tax increases (and federal deficit financing) following the Reagan tax cuts to the current budget disasters in Kansas, Louisiana, and Wisconsin, demonstrate this clearly. Indeed the very little we see from the candidates is their budget plans call for concrete tax cuts followed by magical thinking about revenues and expenditure reduction. Just follow the magical asterisks down the golden brick road. Therefore it is quite clear either the candidates are delusional, a very good reason not to support them, or they will happily lie to us. Trump and Carson are probably delusional, Trump because he comes from a very different decision structure and Carson because he is simply out of his depth in even being able to guess what to do; he will be the puppet of his handlers. Bush, Rubio, and Christie know better but assume they can con enough voters to to win, and the rest (perhaps Kasich excepted) simply lack the scruples to care, much less be honest. Kasich knows it's bunco and he knows we know but he wants the prize too much to be honest, and that's a killer. Every candidate, Democratic candidate included, needs to be pressed to explain how they will address that potential 40 percent increase in demand for revenue, particularly if economic growth takes the form of capital gains to the top 1 percent.
128
Thank you, it is so refreshing to read your spot-on analysis. I am on the other side and shake my head with wonder as these so-called tax plans have been introduced and fact checked. Ultimately, this election comes down to low information voters I'm afraid, particularly in the primaries.
4
In your list of states in financial crises, you forgot New Jersey. I guess asking Governor Chiristie about that would have been a "gotcha question".
6
I do not call yourself a "fiscally conservative Republican" with a straight face. Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all oversaw an increase in our national debt. Why in god's name are those three words - fiscally conservative Republican - even associated with each other. They seem to be worn as a badge of honor - something used to differentiate the wearer from the nut wing of the party.
5
At times of highly skewed income distribution illustrated by the 1% vs 99% the principle of social equity and economic prudence demand a judicious tax relief to the Middle and lower income segments while increase in taxes for the high end segment. For, it's only through a rational tax scheme that an overall balance to the economy involving growth and public spending could be maintained.
41
I got carried away writing my last post.
The GOP mantra has been tax cuts make the economy grow for as long as I can remember. At one time I thought I might benefit from a tax cut, but eventually realized I pis so little tax that cuts would not do me much good, an din fact were detrimental.
Our tax system has become so convoluted and loaded with special rules and regulations all that benefit those who are already very well off, that it does noting for the average tax payer. Yet, there about 45% of the lower income voters are convinced they will benefit. The GOP propaganda machine has been that effective. During WWII there was a 90% tax rate on the upper income, yet Henry Kaiser became one of the richest men in the country, and Howard Hughes was one of the worlds richest men.
And, if you worked for Howard, you became one of the middle class.
The tax cut agenda is a scam, it only benefits those who are already wealthy. But it appeals to enough voters to keep the GOP politicians employed. The income inequality we have today is what has driven revolutions since the industrial age. It has brought about the overthrow of several governments, rulers, potentates, and other ruling parties. Some were peaceful, and some violent such as the end of the Czars, but they were driven by inequality of wealth, and the means by how that wealth was acquired.
The GOP mantra has been tax cuts make the economy grow for as long as I can remember. At one time I thought I might benefit from a tax cut, but eventually realized I pis so little tax that cuts would not do me much good, an din fact were detrimental.
Our tax system has become so convoluted and loaded with special rules and regulations all that benefit those who are already very well off, that it does noting for the average tax payer. Yet, there about 45% of the lower income voters are convinced they will benefit. The GOP propaganda machine has been that effective. During WWII there was a 90% tax rate on the upper income, yet Henry Kaiser became one of the richest men in the country, and Howard Hughes was one of the worlds richest men.
And, if you worked for Howard, you became one of the middle class.
The tax cut agenda is a scam, it only benefits those who are already wealthy. But it appeals to enough voters to keep the GOP politicians employed. The income inequality we have today is what has driven revolutions since the industrial age. It has brought about the overthrow of several governments, rulers, potentates, and other ruling parties. Some were peaceful, and some violent such as the end of the Czars, but they were driven by inequality of wealth, and the means by how that wealth was acquired.
131
Again, another for as long as I can remember, comment.
The GOP has made tax cuts the basis of their economic policy. Their rational is, that the wealthy who are the job creators as they put it, will create more jobs with it. As we have seen from 1929 on, this is just plain horse manure.
The really rich today, the hedge fund managers, CEOs, members of corporate boards,do not use their wealth to create employment, other than that of domestic help, a few mansions, some yacht crews, even pilots, but not on a scale like an appliance company assembly line would create. Those jobs are farmed out to low paying countries, so that these investors will have even higher incomes. It is not a trickle up economy, it is a waterfall up economy.
Hedge fund managers are not entrepreneurs, they are money manipulators, and their customers are money collectors. There is more incentive to move money around than there is to build industries in the U.S. The system gives people just enough to buy what is for sale, but not enough to get ahead. That is not true for everyone, and I happen to be someone who has managed to have discretionary income. But I see my daughters who have demanding jobs, just barely getting by with jobs that would have put them in the middle class 30 years ago.
Today I see the managers of companies as stingy and mean spirited. They will fire an employee who looks at them the wrong way.
The GOP has made tax cuts the basis of their economic policy. Their rational is, that the wealthy who are the job creators as they put it, will create more jobs with it. As we have seen from 1929 on, this is just plain horse manure.
The really rich today, the hedge fund managers, CEOs, members of corporate boards,do not use their wealth to create employment, other than that of domestic help, a few mansions, some yacht crews, even pilots, but not on a scale like an appliance company assembly line would create. Those jobs are farmed out to low paying countries, so that these investors will have even higher incomes. It is not a trickle up economy, it is a waterfall up economy.
Hedge fund managers are not entrepreneurs, they are money manipulators, and their customers are money collectors. There is more incentive to move money around than there is to build industries in the U.S. The system gives people just enough to buy what is for sale, but not enough to get ahead. That is not true for everyone, and I happen to be someone who has managed to have discretionary income. But I see my daughters who have demanding jobs, just barely getting by with jobs that would have put them in the middle class 30 years ago.
Today I see the managers of companies as stingy and mean spirited. They will fire an employee who looks at them the wrong way.
344
The arithmetically deeply-challenged GOP'er proposals make it plain that while most Americans look at the plans as failure since they " won't work " math-wise, GOP'ers consider that factor to be an asset instead of a bug, helping to promote crisis, just as we've seen with previous GOP'er plans.
Woe to any moderators with the temerity to point out the same, since the GOP'er slate will proceed to pull the lollipop out of the press's mouth and try to deny access where the offending moderators and press organizations had been previously invited in.
Quite a little racket GOP'ers are trying to run to avoid being called out.
Woe to any moderators with the temerity to point out the same, since the GOP'er slate will proceed to pull the lollipop out of the press's mouth and try to deny access where the offending moderators and press organizations had been previously invited in.
Quite a little racket GOP'ers are trying to run to avoid being called out.
199
"Deeply-challenged GOP'er proposals", huh. One of those knocked was Rubio's who the Tax Foundation scored as increasing the deficit by $2.4 tn over 10 yrs. By contrast, Obama increased the debt by $8 tn (from $10 tn to $18 tn) and he's not even done yet. So if Republicans are "arithmetically deeply-challenged", what does that make Obama ? Still counting on fingers and toes ?
Fact is that our debt / GDP had been pretty constant for 40 years prior to Obama - and that's several wars and recessions. As an example, Clinton in 1992 had us at 60% debt/ GDP while Bush 16 yrs later had us at 62% debt/GDP. Not much change. In just 7 yrs, Obama has increased our debt / GDP from 62% to 102% (up 40 points) putting us right between spendthrifts like Portugal and Belgium and only a few spots from Greece.
How's that math ?
Fact is that our debt / GDP had been pretty constant for 40 years prior to Obama - and that's several wars and recessions. As an example, Clinton in 1992 had us at 60% debt/ GDP while Bush 16 yrs later had us at 62% debt/GDP. Not much change. In just 7 yrs, Obama has increased our debt / GDP from 62% to 102% (up 40 points) putting us right between spendthrifts like Portugal and Belgium and only a few spots from Greece.
How's that math ?
1
What an inspired comment! Let's see........Obama inherited a $1,4 TRILLION deficit and came into office during the worst downturn in 80 years. Since then, Obama's actions have REDUCED the deficit by 2/3, down to under $500 billion this year, and this commenter tells us how Obama has raised the debt. Tell me, are you being funny, or intentionally ignorant?
15
It's extraordinary that Americans might fall one more time for the Charlie Brown "kick the football" trick. The GOP clearly thinks they can pull off Voodoo III to reverse the modest gains in marginal income and capital gains taxes negotiated by the Obama Administration.
Some still believe that giving the super-rich yet more tax cuts will create good jobs for them. At this point, that qualifies as delusional thinking.
Good grief!
Some still believe that giving the super-rich yet more tax cuts will create good jobs for them. At this point, that qualifies as delusional thinking.
Good grief!
400
Indeed. It qualified as delusional thinking forty years and ago and the repeated failure of such policies has certainly not changed this.
1
"Work" is a subjective term in this context. If the purpose of tax policy is to enrich the elite rich even further, then Republican tax policy has been working for 30 plus years. And all these current tax schemes, which are nothing more than voodoo with a different sales pitch, will "work" as well, in that they will continue and even accelerate the increase of the income share of the top 0.1%, which is the Republicans true constituency.
In 2012, the top 0.1% of the taxpayers earned more income than did the lower 50% of taxpayers. That's 136,000 people earning more than 68 million people. Just imagine what the Republicans can accomplish if their given a chance for these new schemes to "work".
In 2012, the top 0.1% of the taxpayers earned more income than did the lower 50% of taxpayers. That's 136,000 people earning more than 68 million people. Just imagine what the Republicans can accomplish if their given a chance for these new schemes to "work".
241
Tax cuts cannot create economic growth the same way they might have 30 years ago, we don't have the job infrastructure and pay scale to support this kind of growth anymore. Many of the jobs created are low paying service jobs, retail, etc. The only new industry would be green energy, which would need some tax help to get going, but the GOP is not interested in this sector. There should never be tax cuts that aren't tied to a real reciprocation in actual large scale job creation/or actual investment in innovation that would lead to large scale job creation. Just cutting taxes has led to piles of unused wealth in overseas accounts which does exactly zero for economic growth.
304
When the democrats wanted to justify stimulus spending, we heard all about how more money in people's hands would be beneficial. More money in people's hands from a tax cut is somehow less beneficial?
The job market has been neglected for years under this president. Favorable tax treatment -- for example, to repatriate those trillions -- should be tied to job creation. It really isn't rocket science. Even The Donald figured this one out.
It will just take a different president, hopefully a republican so he/she will be focused on job creation.
The job market has been neglected for years under this president. Favorable tax treatment -- for example, to repatriate those trillions -- should be tied to job creation. It really isn't rocket science. Even The Donald figured this one out.
It will just take a different president, hopefully a republican so he/she will be focused on job creation.
7
There's lots of unused cash in company accounts now right here in the US of A, without bringing more home through tax changes, and it's not being used to create jobs. So you want to reward companies with lower taxes if they more money home, then hope they'll create jobs? What do you do if the jobs are not forthcoming, claw back the money? Good luck with that.
There's a case for favorable tax treatment for job creation, once the investment has been made, but the circle must be closed by applying some stick along with the carrot. Increase the top tax rates to reduce the incentive for making and hoarding money, then you can talk about credits for business expenses once the investment in jobs has been made. Meanwhile, the taxes raised would go to badly needed infrastructure projects which would - guess what - create jobs.
If the GOP got over its aversion to increasing revenue, it could reclaim the Eisenhower legacy. It won't, so will remain the obstructionist party that won't learn better until it massively defeated sooner or later - preferably sooner, because later implies it will have had the chance to further undermine both the physical and social fabric of the nation.
There's a case for favorable tax treatment for job creation, once the investment has been made, but the circle must be closed by applying some stick along with the carrot. Increase the top tax rates to reduce the incentive for making and hoarding money, then you can talk about credits for business expenses once the investment in jobs has been made. Meanwhile, the taxes raised would go to badly needed infrastructure projects which would - guess what - create jobs.
If the GOP got over its aversion to increasing revenue, it could reclaim the Eisenhower legacy. It won't, so will remain the obstructionist party that won't learn better until it massively defeated sooner or later - preferably sooner, because later implies it will have had the chance to further undermine both the physical and social fabric of the nation.
169
Tax cuts reduce revenue. They do not create jobs. They do not stimulate growth. One plus one equal two even in a Republican universe.
35
The "maker" myth really persists
On tax cuts each Repub insists,
That hoax, trickle down,
A con of renown,
Tops all of the phoniest lists.
On tax cuts each Repub insists,
That hoax, trickle down,
A con of renown,
Tops all of the phoniest lists.
179
None has a tax plan coherent enough to be the subject of a substantive discussion? That will come as a tremendous surprise to all those other people actually discussing them.
8
"...all those other people actually discussing them."
You mean all the less than 1% of people, there abouts?
You mean all the less than 1% of people, there abouts?
12
For example, who? Who's having a serious, substantive discussion about which candidate's tax plan?
The only substantive discussions I've seen conclude that all the GOP candidates' tax plans are a combination of snake oil, magic asterisks, and absurd assumptions.
The only substantive discussions I've seen conclude that all the GOP candidates' tax plans are a combination of snake oil, magic asterisks, and absurd assumptions.
24
But are they discussing them coherently? Or ideologically?
The right-of-center Tax Foundation has done a preliminary scoring of their plans (at least those with enough information to actually make sense), and have concluded every single one will add trillions to the national debt over the next decade!
Indeed, Donald Trump's oh-so-wonderful plan would tack on another $12 TRILLION in debt!!!
I thought Republicans were upset with the size of the national debt? Amazing how it vanishes in the face of delivering those never ending tax cuts for the wealthy!
The right-of-center Tax Foundation has done a preliminary scoring of their plans (at least those with enough information to actually make sense), and have concluded every single one will add trillions to the national debt over the next decade!
Indeed, Donald Trump's oh-so-wonderful plan would tack on another $12 TRILLION in debt!!!
I thought Republicans were upset with the size of the national debt? Amazing how it vanishes in the face of delivering those never ending tax cuts for the wealthy!
48
It is blatant Voodoo Economics -- tax cuts will generate more in taxes from growth than they cost in the original cuts.
It never worked. The math shows it can't.
They don't care. They just want the tax cuts.
It never worked. The math shows it can't.
They don't care. They just want the tax cuts.
486
That's what they're paid to want by their owners.
18
Mark, your post is spot on!.
Greed is the essential element the Republicans' tax plans. Equally important is the fact that none of the Republicans tax plans has anything to do with true capitalism, but the Republicans tax plans (and borrowing from Shakespeare - past is prologue) have a lot to do with the current runaway income and wealth inequality in America.
Greed is the essential element the Republicans' tax plans. Equally important is the fact that none of the Republicans tax plans has anything to do with true capitalism, but the Republicans tax plans (and borrowing from Shakespeare - past is prologue) have a lot to do with the current runaway income and wealth inequality in America.
7
Why? And why do poorer states keep voting for a party that ignores the needs of the people living there? The South is a perfect example of the lesser voting to enrich the few. Do those Tea Party fanatics know what the original Tea Party stood for, no taxation without representation, not no taxation? The voting patterns in this country make no sense. This country increasingly makes no sense. Try explaining what's going on to a European friend. They think we have run off the rails. Which is easy since we've let our infrastructure go to 'heck'.
8
Of course, the point--beyond gulling the gullible--is to "starve the beast,"by all means possible. It's their way of axing Social Security, Medicare and the rest: sorry, can't be helped, oopises, here're the books, we just ain't got no money, your retirement'll have to go on hold, but did you notice that we increased the limit on retirement income? Now, you can work another graveyard shift as a Walmart greeter! Won't that be nice?
More difficult to 'splain will be how it might be that there'll be plenty to send military spending through the roof.