Let’s Not Make a Deal

[Nbadan]

I agree with Howard Dean and other progressive writers...Obama must be willing to not concede to GOP demands to extend tax cuts to the rich and must be ready to go over the financial cliff if necessary...

Let’s Not Make a Deal
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 8, 2012 850 Comments



To say the obvious: Democrats won an amazing victory. Not only did they hold the White House despite a still-troubled economy, in a year when their Senate majority was supposed to be doomed, they actually added seats.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman
Go to Columnist Page »
Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal
Related

Back to Work, Obama Is Greeted by Looming Crisis (November 8, 2012)
Boehner Strikes Conciliatory Tone in Talk of Fiscal Cliff (November 8, 2012)

Related in Opinion

Times Topic: Economy

Opinion Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Read All Comments (850) »

Nor was that all: They scored major gains in the states. Most notably, California — long a poster child for the political dysfunction that comes when nothing can get done without a legislative supermajority — not only voted for much-needed tax increases, but elected, you guessed it, a Democratic supermajority.

But one goal eluded the victors. Even though preliminary estimates suggest that Democrats received somewhat more votes than Republicans in Congressional elections, the G.O.P. retains solid control of the House thanks to extreme gerrymandering by courts and Republican-controlled state governments. And Representative John Boehner, the speaker of the House, wasted no time in declaring that his party remains as intransigent as ever, utterly opposed to any rise in tax rates even as it whines about the size of the deficit.

So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

In saying this, I don’t mean to minimize the very real economic dangers posed by the so-called fiscal cliff that is looming at the end of this year if the two parties can’t reach a deal. Both the Bush-era tax cuts and the Obama administration’s payroll tax cut are set to expire, even as automatic spending cuts in defense and elsewhere kick in thanks to the deal struck after the 2011 confrontation over the debt ceiling. And the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts looks easily large enough to push America back into recession.

Nobody wants to see that happen. Yet it may happen all the same, and Mr. Obama has to be willing to let it happen if necessary.

Why? Because Republicans are trying, for the third time since he took office, to use economic blackmail to achieve a goal they lack the votes to achieve through the normal legislative process. In particular, they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even though the nation can’t afford to make those tax cuts permanent and the public believes that taxes on the rich should go up — and they’re threatening to block any deal on anything else unless they get their way. So they are, in effect, threatening to tank the economy unless their demands are met.

Mr. Obama essentially surrendered in the face of similar tactics at the end of 2010, extending low taxes on the rich for two more years. He made significant concessions again in 2011, when Republicans threatened to create financial chaos by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And the current potential crisis is the legacy of those past concessions.

Well, this has to stop — unless we want hostage-taking, the threat of making the nation ungovernable, to become a standard part of our political process.

So what should he do? Just say no, and go over the cliff if necessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html?_r=1&

Howard Dean:

So I think we ought to go over the cliff; we ought to bite the bullet; it'll take seven and a half trillion dollars out of our deficit - that's a big number, and there will be sacrifices, but any politician who tells the American people there aren't going to be sacrifices for everybody is a liar.

[Nbadan]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556737_495489793807059_154721467_n.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Move the top marginal rate back to 70%+ and see how fact the rich will move out elsewhere.

It's a different world than those decades past.

[LnGrrrR]

So you're saying that the rich are less patriotic nowadays WC? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

So you're saying that the rich are less patriotic nowadays WC? :lol
Not at all. They are probably as patriotic as any other class of wealth. They simply have greater mobility than a common person does, and there are so many great places in the world today.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If raising taxes means richers like Trump, the Koch Brothers, and Shelden Adelson leave the country, sign me up.

[Wild Cobra]

If raising taxes means richers like Trump, the Koch Brothers, and Shelden Adelson leave the country, sign me up.
Why are you a bigot against rich people?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why are you a bigot against rich people?

I really hope this new "bigotry against rich people" thing isn't something you expect to be taken seriously.

Why are you constantly throating rich people scrote? Do you think the Koch Brothers read these forums and are impressed by the fellatio you give them on a daily basis?

:cry job creators :cry

[Wild Cobra]

I really hope this new "bigotry against rich people" thing isn't something you expect to be taken seriously.

Why are you constantly throating rich people scrote? Do you think the Koch Brothers read these forums and are impressed by the fellatio you give them on a daily basis?

:cry job creators :cry
Hatred is hatred.

Live with it. You are a fucking bigot.

[ChumpDumper]

lol WC thinks he has a new gotcha line.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Hatred is hatred.

Live with it. You are a fucking bigot.

Gay love is gay love.

Live with it. You have gay love for the Koch Brothers.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol WC thinks he has a new gotcha line.

he learned the word bigot last week and he thinks it's the best thing ever :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Bullies and bigots and flaglots, oh my!

[LnGrrrR]

Not at all. They are probably as patriotic as any other class of wealth. They simply have greater mobility than a common person does, and there are so many great places in the world today.

I don't know, leaving your country because you'll earn millions less seems like a lack of patriotism. Instead of reinvesting in your country, you just move to a different one. I certainly hope my friends are a little more loyal than that. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know, leaving your country because you'll earn millions less seems like a lack of patriotism. Instead of reinvesting in your country, you just move to a different one. I certainly hope my friends are a little more loyal than that. :lol
And does every one share your belief?

Look at the hatred these people have to deal with. The pettiness of others demanding more from them. They already pay more than most in taxes, but the "little people" want them to pay more. Don't you think they get a bit frustrated with the pettiness of others?

[TeyshaBlue]

I think you've lost your mind. The resentment is based upon the concept of fairness. There is simply no case for the current tax structure, one that hugely favors the wealthy, as being anything remotely considered fair.

[TeyshaBlue]

Also the concept of CEO's of failed companies pulling in millions is fairly repulsive.

[TeyshaBlue]

And does every one share your belief?

Look at the hatred these people have to deal with. The pettiness of others demanding more from them. They already pay more than most in taxes, but the "little people" want them to pay more. Don't you think they get a bit frustrated with the pettiness of others?

Pettiness pretty much describes your idiotic response.

[TeyshaBlue]

Inequality is what it is. It's always been an artifact of societization. Doesn't mean it's peachy.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And does every one share your belief?

Look at the hatred these people have to deal with. The pettiness of others demanding more from them. They already pay more than most in taxes, but the "little people" want them to pay more. Don't you think they get a bit frustrated with the pettiness of others?

I agree, they live a really tough life. I'm sure the Waltons, the Koch Brothers, Trump, and Adelson wake up every day wishing they could live in the ghetto and collect welfare.

:cry poor rich people :cry

[Clipper Nation]

he learned the word bigot last week and he thinks it's the best thing ever :lmao
Especially since, until recently, bigotry to him was :cry what the left uses to demonize all conservatives :cry tbh...

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Looks like I touch a nerve...

The truth hurts. Doesn't it.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ truth

[ElNono]

:lol rich folks already have their taxes sheltered somewhere else... high taxes just makes it a hassle to move it back here, that's all. They love their money more than they love their country, no doubt about it.

WC's knobslobbing of the rich folk is up there with 'benevolent dictators'... it only makes sense in the mind of an idiot :lol

[baseline bum]

:lol rich folks already have their taxes sheltered somewhere else... high taxes just makes it a hassle to move it back here, that's all. They love their money more than they love their country, no doubt about it.

WC's knobslobbing of the rich folk is up there with 'benevolent dictators'... it only makes sense in the mind of an idiot :lol

Don't forget the benevolent slaveowners.

[LnGrrrR]

And does every one share your belief?

Look at the hatred these people have to deal with. The pettiness of others demanding more from them. They already pay more than most in taxes, but the "little people" want them to pay more. Don't you think they get a bit frustrated with the pettiness of others?

Look at the hatred poor people deal with. Look at the hatred immigrants have to deal with. Look at the hatred transgendered people have to deal with. Guess what? Everyone hates everyone else.

And the whole "They pay more"... who cares? Are you arguing that everyone should have to pay the exact amount in taxes? Because if not, then what's your point?

[boutons_deux]

WC, defending the predatory, thieving. corrupt 1%. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol rich folks already have their taxes sheltered somewhere else... high taxes just makes it a hassle to move it back here, that's all. They love their money more than they love their country, no doubt about it.

WC's knobslobbing of the rich folk is up there with 'benevolent dictators'... it only makes sense in the mind of an idiot :lol
Not all do. Is it fair for those who don't?

What you butthurt liberals are advocating for is wrong. It isn't fair. Want to equalize things, remove all the loopholes.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What loopholes need to be removed?

Be specific.

[Wild Cobra]

Look at the hatred poor people deal with.

Not very many hate poor people for being poor.


Look at the hatred immigrants have to deal with.

Who hates immigrants? Do we have racists here? Noe I want to deter illegal immigration, but I don't hate them. I understand their reasons.


Look at the hatred transgendered people have to deal with.

Yes, most people think they are strange. I do too. Is that hate? I'm sure a large number do hate them though.


Guess what? Everyone hates everyone else.

Yes.

It's called bigotry.

Being a racist is just one type of bigot. All are equally wrong.


And the whole "They pay more"... who cares? Are you arguing that everyone should have to pay the exact amount in taxes? Because if not, then what's your point?

Not at all. I am pointing out that they pay more because they make more. Raising the percentage they pay isn't right, unless you are going to impose equal suffrage at all taxation levels.

[Wild Cobra]

What loopholes need to be removed?

Be specific.
Too many. No thanks Chump. Include deductions, as that is the primary cause of them paying less in taxes.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Too many. No thanks Chump. Include deductions, as that is the primary cause of them paying less in taxes.

In other words, "Get rid of teh loopholes!" is a Conservative talking point you regurgitated but don't specifically know what loopholes.

Name one specific loophole/deduction/whatever that you think needs to be removed and briefly say why. Just one specific example. One.

[LnGrrrR]

Not very many hate poor people for being poor.

Oh, yes, they hate them for taking money out of their pockets. I guess the poor should just starve quietly. :lol


Who hates immigrants? Do we have racists here? Noe I want to deter illegal immigration, but I don't hate them. I understand their reasons.

I didn't mean you did. But plenty of others do.


Yes, most people think they are strange. I do too. Is that hate? I'm sure a large number do hate them though.

Exactly.


Yes.

It's called bigotry.

Being a racist is just one type of bigot. All are equally wrong.

I wouldn't necessarily say that... I would say hating nazis isn't quite as bad as hating blacks. But yes, your larger point stands.


Not at all. I am pointing out that they pay more because they make more. Raising the percentage they pay isn't right, unless you are going to impose equal suffrage at all taxation levels.

Wait, that makes no sense. There's NEVER been a flat tax imposed by America. So why should we suddenly start now? How is "raising the percentage" not right? Do rich people not receive the benefits of bending politicians to their will?

[baseline bum]

Yeah, he doesn't hate them; he just wants to personally slaughter them, their wives, and children at the border.

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, that makes no sense. There's NEVER been a flat tax imposed by America. So why should we suddenly start now? How is "raising the percentage" not right? Do rich people not receive the benefits of bending politicians to their will?
What do you mean it makes no sense? I would prefer a flat tax if we are going to maintain an income tax system, but I have already advocated that it's all or nothing. If the rich's taxes will return to pre Bush tax cuts, then so does everyone's. Since I have been a tax payer, the federal tax burden has moved from maybe 75% of income workers, to 53%%. They keep decreasing tax rates, but then never touch that third rail to return the people's rates back up who have lesser incomes.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, he doesn't hate them; he just wants to personally slaughter them, their wives, and children at the border.
Do you ever get things right? Why are you chronically wrong?

[ElNono]

Not all do. Is it fair for those who don't?

The real rich folks do... it's not even a question unless you're absolutely in denial...

And when we talk fairness, it would be good for you to remember that wealth in this country has largely moved up non stop lately. (and before you reply with you usual stupid 'wealth is dynamic! comment, the amount of wealth being dynamic doesn't change that fact at all).

So yeah, I think it's fair to ask for a little more of those who have been largely doing well... heck, better than anybody else.

[LnGrrrR]

What do you mean it makes no sense? I would prefer a flat tax if we are going to maintain an income tax system, but I have already advocated that it's all or nothing. If the rich's taxes will return to pre Bush tax cuts, then so does everyone's. Since I have been a tax payer, the federal tax burden has moved from maybe 75% of income workers, to 53%%. They keep decreasing tax rates, but then never touch that third rail to return the people's rates back up who have lesser incomes.

They decrease the rates for the middle class because the middle class tends to put money into the economy. My point was, is that America has never (AFAIK) had a "flat tax". So America has been "unfair" since it started taxing income.

Additionally, the whole "but the rich pay more" is a dumb argument, unless you argue that every person should just pay 5 dollars or something. There's literally no point bringing up that point.

And they're flirting with the third rail now... many LIBERALS are advocating going off the fiscal cliff, noting that it will raise taxes on the middle class again. (Of course, they're hoping that Republicans will repeal that part, but still, it is certainly being mentioned.)

[Wild Cobra]

I've been saying for a long time we are doomed. Until we stop subsidizing as many people as we do, we will continue to decline wealth as a nation. With 47% of the income tax filers not paying income tax and getting redistributed wealth... Can you imagine when that goes past 50%... We already have too many polirticians elected that advocate redistribution of wealth. Cross that 50% point, and watch out!

[DMX7]

I've been saying for a long time we are doomed. Until we stop subsidizing as many people as we do, we will continue to decline wealth as a nation. With 47% of the income tax filers not paying income tax and getting redistributed wealth... Can you imagine when that goes past 50%... We already have too many polirticians elected that advocate redistribution of wealth. Cross that 50% point, and watch out!

We are subsidizing the wealthy. Raising taxes on the hourly workers at McDonald's isn't going to make our national wealthier or reduce the deficit in any serious way especially because they'll need social safety net programs even more so.

[Wild Cobra]

We are subsidizing the wealthy.
If so, we need to put an end to that.


Raising taxes on the hourly workers at McDonald's isn't going to make our national wealthier or reduce the deficit in any serious way especially because they'll need social safety net programs even more so.
I didn't know hourly workers at McDonalds could have their taxes raised except in rare cases. A single mother with one child would have to work full time and then overtime as well at McDonalds wages to pay any federal tax.

[Wild Cobra]

I had ready the tax information from 1986 to 2011. I adjusted for COLA between these times and came up with the following. A single person today can make 33% more today before having a tax liability vs. 1986. A family of 4 can make 65% more before paying taxes. The single provider of two children can make 71% more before having a tax liability.

Think, people, think!

[velik_m]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556737_495489793807059_154721467_n.jpg

More like: In the 1950s & 1960s when the rest of the world was still recovering from the most destructive war in the history of mankind our economy was booming.

You want that back?
Bomb the shit out of the rest of the world.

[Wild Cobra]

More like: In the 1950s & 1960s when the rest of the world was still recovering from the most destructive war in the history of mankind our economy was booming.

You want that back?
Bomb the shit out of the rest of the world.
It won't work.

Our factories that supported all this were here. Now they are in other countries.

[baseline bum]

Do you ever get things right? Why are you chronically wrong?



I am flat out fed up. Yes, if they will not do these other things, then I say shoot them as they cross. I would go and take my rifle if it was legal to shoot them.


Hell... I say place kiosk operated machine guns on the border and post a sign that says BYOB... Bring your own Bullets!

[baseline bum]

dp

[Wild Cobra]

Context is everything Baseline idiot.

"Yes, if they will not do these other things, then I say"

You left out the context asshole.

[GoodOdor]

You are clearly misinterpreting what WC said! No where did he say specifically to kill the wifes/children!

He was only advocating shooting full grown beaners! :cryYou are a hater!:cry

[Wild Cobra]

You are clearly misinterpreting what WC said! No where did he say specifically to kill the wifes/children!

He was only advocating shooting full grown beaners! :cryYou are a hater!:cry
If there was a real threat to crossing the border, think people would... at least in the numbers they do?

We do have a right to protect our nation from invasions...

[GoodOdor]

If there was a real threat to crossing the border, think people would... at least in the numbers they do?

We do have a right to protect our nation from invasions...

You are a sick individual.

[baseline bum]

LOL wingnut wishes it was legal so he could get his needle-dick hard after unloading a magazine into a Mexican family.

[Th'Pusher]

I had ready the tax information from 1986 to 2011. I adjusted for COLA between these times and came up with the following. A single person today can make 33% more today before having a tax liability vs. 1986. A family of 4 can make 65% more before paying taxes. The single provider of two children can make 71% more before having a tax liability.

Think, people, think!
You do realize that is a direct result of the tax cuts/credits primarily introduced by republicans right?

[GoodOdor]

:cryhey guys, just because I wanna shoot mexicans doesn't make me a racist:cryI've google stalked a mexican chick once you know:cry

[ElNono]

With 47% of the income tax filers not paying income tax and getting redistributed wealth... Can you imagine when that goes past 50%...

If we're getting more and more people not making enough to file a tax return and the country still shows growth (which it does, even if small), then what's happening is that the redistribution is going up. Redistribution doesn't happen only through taxes. When john doe pays his cable bill, the money is getting redistributed upstream (in this case through a service, but it's still redistribution nonetheless).

So yeah, if it does get past 50%, what that means is that few people are soaking up too much money, and the class mobility is largely going down instead of up. Misery for a lot, oligarchy for just a few. So the question is, how do we address that?

[baseline bum]

If we're getting more and more people not making enough to file a tax return and the country still shows growth (which it does, even if small), then what's happening is that the redistribution is going up. Redistribution doesn't happen only through taxes. When john doe pays his cable bill, the money is getting redistributed upstream (in this case through a service, but it's still redistribution nonetheless).

So yeah, if it does get past 50%, what that means is that few people are soaking up too much money, and the class mobility is largely going down instead of up. Misery for a lot, oligarchy for just a few. So the question is, how do we address that?

By shooting them as they cross, libtard

[ElNono]

I had ready the tax information from 1986 to 2011. I adjusted for COLA between these times and came up with the following. A single person today can make 33% more today before having a tax liability vs. 1986. A family of 4 can make 65% more before paying taxes. The single provider of two children can make 71% more before having a tax liability.

Think, people, think!

What did the country deficit looked like then and now? You didn't wonder why?

Think, people, think!

[ElNono]

By shooting them as they cross, libtard

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

You are a sick individual.
I'll take that as a complement, coming from you.

[Wild Cobra]

You do realize that is a direct result of the tax cuts/credits primarily introduced by republicans right?
You think that has merit to me, saying it was because of republicans?

[Clipper Nation]

:cryhey guys, just because I wanna shoot mexicans doesn't make me a racist:cryI've google stalked a mexican chick once you know:cry

:cry "I hate white people too!" :cry

[Th'Pusher]

You think that has merit to me, saying it was because of republicans?
Absolutely. Your knee jerk position is always to defend republicans/corporations/establishment.

[DMX7]

If so, we need to put an end to that.

I didn't know hourly workers at McDonalds could have their taxes raised except in rare cases. A single mother with one child would have to work full time and then overtime as well at McDonalds wages to pay any federal tax.

Oh, Ok... When you referenced the 47%, I thought you were advocating "broadening the base" which means taxing (with federal income tax) that McDonald's working single mom.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

47% of this country having no tax liability doesn't mean our tax code is fucked up like WC seems to think. It means our middle class has completely evaporated and nearly half our country lives in poverty because so much wealth has concentrated towards the top. The Walton family controls as much wealth as the entire bottom 30% of this country. Our wealth is way more unevenly distributed than any Republicans care to admit.

[Bill_Brasky]

If there was a real threat to crossing the border, think people would... at least in the numbers they do?

We do have a right to protect our nation from invasions...

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2017113852_immigtaxes29.html

How dare they cross into our land, earn shitty wages, then pay taxes that they never get back based on said wages!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2017113852_immigtaxes29.html

How dare they cross into our land, earn shitty wages, then pay taxes that they never get back based on said wages!

This is another thing people seem to ignore. Illegal immigrants keep social security and medicare going by paying money into it they never get back :lol. People who pretend they're some huge liability to our economy are kidding themselves.

[boutons_deux]

and of course, there is a huge ripoff of undoc ims that are underpaid or not paid at all, because the employers know the undocs won't report their employer cheating to the govt.

It looks like the Repugs will have to climb down from their bubba-suckering "no amnesty" hyper-legal bullshit, as there will be some kind of amnesty and path to permanent residency. Sucks for the long line of legal residency applicants, but just maybe sometimes once in a while, life isn't fair.

I do agree that the border must be sealed better since the economy recovering and the residency for undocs will be again a huge magnet for border crossings.

[Borat Sagyidev]

If there was a real threat to crossing the border, think people would... at least in the numbers they do?

We do have a right to protect our nation from invasions...


LOL wingnut wishes it was legal so he could get his needle-dick hard after unloading a magazine into a Mexican family.


This is why liberals need guns too. When it comes down to it, the only solution to deal with people like nutjob conservatives like WC is to be prepared to shoot them in the face when they opt for violence as they usually conclude. This is why Donald trump was tweeting revolution nonsense on election night, they love instigating violence because all of there other advocacies are ineffective, nevermind vast majority of them can't handle a paper cut.

[Agloco]

So I think we ought to go over the cliff; we ought to bite the bullet; it'll take seven and a half trillion dollars out of our deficit - that's a big number, and there will be sacrifices, but any politician who tells the American people there aren't going to be sacrifices for everybody is a liar.

I think that this might be Obamas defining moment. To the cliff we go.

[Agloco]

I had ready the tax information from 1986 to 2011. I adjusted for COLA between these times and came up with the following. A single person today can make 33% more today before having a tax liability vs. 1986. A family of 4 can make 65% more before paying taxes. The single provider of two children can make 71% more before having a tax liability.

Think, people, think!

I wonder what those percentages are with regard to purchasing power. More curious than anything.

[boutons_deux]

Conservative Media Promote Myths To Shield Wealthy From Tax Hikes

Levin: Those Who Earn More Than $250,000 Are The "So-Called" Rich. On the November 9 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, conservative radio host Mark Levin implied that those making over $250,000 are not legitimately rich, claiming that President Obama's plan to raise taxes on high-income earners is "trashing the so-called rich."

Willis: "Lots And Lots" Of Middle Income People Make $250,000 A Year. On the November 9 edition of Markets Now, Fox Business host Gerri Willis attempted to portray a tax increase on high income earners as one that affects a large number of Americans

Charles Payne: $250,000 Threshold Not The "Real" Definition Of Rich. On the November 14 edition of America Live, frequent Fox contributor Charles Payne derided Obama's plan to increase tax rates on households making more than $250,000 a year, claiming that this income threshold does not reflect the "real" definition of rich.

REALITY: Very Few Americans Make More Than $250,000 A Year

Census Bureau Data: Median Household Income In U.S. Far Below $250,000. According to the most recent Census Bureau data, median household income currently stands at $50,054, about one fifth of the threshold for Obama's proposed tax rate hikes

Tax Policy Center: Only 6 Million Americans Earn More Than $200,000. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, "about 6.07 million Americans earned above $200,000 in 2011," making up the top 4.2 percent of taxpayers. The Tax Policy Center and the Census Bureau do not publish data for those earning above the $250,000 threshold.

Politifact: Only 2 Percent Of Households Earn More Than $250,000. A Politifact article reviewing claims made by President Obama found that, according to the Internal Revenue Service, less than 2 percent of earners reported income higher than $250,000. From the article:


Using statistics from the IRS website, we found that 137,988,219 tax returns out of 140,494,127 -- or 98.2 percent -- reported adjusted gross income of less than $250,000 a year in 2009, the most recent data available. [Politifact, accessed 11/19/2012]

etc, etc

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/23/conservative-media-promote-myths-to-shield-weal/191498

[Wild Cobra]

So just how much more revenue will the IRS get from that 1.8% of filers?

[ChuckD]

So just how much more revenue will the IRS get from that 1.8% of filers?

More than they're collecting now. The choking of the revenue stream not only has to stop, it must reverse.

[boutons_deux]

So just how much more revenue will the IRS get from that 1.8% of filers?

the estate tax cuts alone cost $1T in revenue in the first 10 years.

[boutons_deux]

Tax Rates For America’s Wealthiest Fell In 2010

With debate in Washington focused on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans, new data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that the effective tax rates for America’s top earners fell even lower in 2010.

The average effective tax rate fell for all income groups above $500,000, continuing a drop that has occurred for years. For incomes above $10 million, the average rate fell from 22.4 percent in 2009 to 20.7 percent in 2010. The reason for the continual drop is clear: the 2003 high-income Bush tax cuts lowered the rate on investment income, and wealthy Americans are deriving more income from investments than they ever have, the Wall Street Journal reports:

The reason for the drop in average tax rates is no secret: It’s the special 15% top rates for capital gains and dividends that President George W. Bush pushed through. In 2009, taxpayers with incomes exceeding $10 million reported 35.8% of their income as capital gains and dividends. That rose to 48.5% for 2010.

Low capital gains rates have helped the wealthy pay lower and lower tax rates even as their incomes have skyrocketed. And while capital gains income makes up almost half of the incomes of the wealthiest Americans, it accounts for 2.2 percent or less for earners under $200,000. Half of all capital gains income goes to just to the richest 0.1 percent of Americans.

The capital gains rate has been steadily eroded since President Ronald Reagan taxed such income equal to wages in the 1980s, and the result has been rising income inequality. A January 2012 study found that low capital gains rates were the biggest driver of American income inequality, which now rivals the levels seen in countries like Ivory Coast and Pakistan. In 2010, the capital gains preference helped the richest 1 percent capture 93 percent of all income gains

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/25/1232871/tax-rates-for-americas-wealthiest-fell-in-2010/

[boutons_deux]

A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. "This is a good one," he says enthusiastically. "I'm in it, and I think you should be, too."

Would your reply possibly be this? "Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you're saying we're going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent." Only in Grover Norquist's imagination does such a response exist.

Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent - and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.

Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation's economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.

So let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if - gasp - capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.

And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That's more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.

A huge tail wind from tax cuts has pushed us along. In 1992, the tax paid by the 400 highest incomes in the United States (a different universe from the Forbes list) averaged 26.4 percent of adjusted gross income. In 2009, the most recent year reported, the rate was 19.9 percent. It's nice to have friends in high places.

The group's average income in 2009 was $202 million - which works out to a "wage" of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I'm assuming they're paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And - brace yourself - a few actually paid nothing.

This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that's the place to start. I support President Obama's proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 - maybe $500,000 or so.

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of "reforming" the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like "carried interest" that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it's sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations.

But the reform of such complexities should not promote delay in our correcting simple and expensive inequities. We can't let those who want to protect the privileged get away with insisting that we do nothing until we can do everything.

Our government's goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P. - levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won't stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America's debt stable in relation to the country's economic output.

In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance - bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats.

All of America is waiting for Congress to offer a realistic and concrete plan for getting back to this fiscally sound path. Nothing less is acceptable.

In the meantime, maybe you'll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won't go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=999792&f=28&sub=Contributor (http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=999792&f=28&sub=Contributor)

[Nbadan]

The plan is succeeding...without political cover from Obama, austerity is all the GOP has left...


... And there’s a reason for this reticence. The fact is that Republican posturing on the deficit has always been a con game, a play on the innumeracy of voters and reporters. Now Mr. Obama has demanded that the G.O.P. put up or shut up — and the response is an aggrieved mumble.

... Now Republicans find themselves boxed in. With taxes scheduled to rise on Jan. 1 in the absence of an agreement, they can’t play their usual game of just saying no to tax increases and pretending that they have a deficit reduction plan. And the president, by refusing to help them out by proposing G.O.P.-friendly spending cuts, has deprived them of political cover. If Republicans really want to slash popular programs, they will have to propose those cuts themselves.

So while the fiscal cliff — still a bad name for the looming austerity bomb, but I guess we’re stuck with it — is a bad thing from an economic point of view, it has had at least one salutary political effect. For it has finally laid bare the con that has always been at the core of the G.O.P.’s political strategy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opinion/krugman-the-big-budget-mumble.html

Note to GOP...drive America off the cliff....elections have consequences...

[Nbadan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c91usT4P1u0