Reply With Quote
Naturally the citizenry will concern itself with who the political winner will be, rather than realizing that they are the losers.
That said, Reuters' fact-checkers should have caught it.
At least they had the balls to admit they screwed up. The bluntness is refreshing.
Naturally the citizenry will concern itself with who the political winner will be, rather than realizing that they are the losers.
In a sense, that's what political agonism is for. To get people personally invested in the process that screws them over.
And gets them thinking that they scored a touchdown, because they were a flea on the back of the political machine that crossed the goal line.
The powerless identify with the powerful and fiercely protect their good names.
(agonism more simply.)
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-02-2010 at 03:22 PM.
I think there are other tax breaks that will expire for the middle class in Obama's budget, but that error was glaring enough to pull the whole story.
But procedurally CAN he just let PART of the tax cuts expire? It will require a new vote by Congress.
Any budget will require a vote by congress. The article was about Obama's proposed budget.
No, the beauty of letting the Bush tax cuts expire was that it was essentially going to be a tax increase that congress didn't have to vote on. The only way a vote would be necessary was if they extended the tax cuts. Now, to extend the cuts for the middle class he has forced congress to actually vote on a tax increase (even if it is for "richers")
No, all they have to do is vote for a "new" tax cut that matches the old one for filers under $250k.
Reality Check on Taxes
http://blog.american.com/?p=10105
The Drudge Report today played up this article about coming middle-class tax hikes. Although Reuters has pulled the article, many people are still reading it at various websites, so it is important to note and correct its appalling inaccuracies:
– The article asserted that the Obama budget would allow the 10 percent, 25 percent, and 28 percent brackets to expire, boosting those rates to 15, 28, and 31 percent, respectively. In reality, the budget would permanently extend the lower rates.
– The article asserted that the Obama budget would raise the dividend tax rate to 39.6 percent. In reality, the budget would raise the rate only to 20 percent.
– The article asserted that the Obama budget would allow taxpayers’ option to deduct state and local sales taxes to expire. In reality, the budget would extend that option through 2011.
President Obama would permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes below $200,000 ($250,000 for couples); statements that the president would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire are true only for households above those income levels. The president has also proposed some additional middle-class tax cuts.
Should this make us happy about President Obama’s budget? Quite the opposite. As Arthur Brooks, Alex Brill, and I have pointed out, the middle-class tax cuts that the president would extend have large revenue losses and do relatively little to promote economic growth. The tax cuts at the top that the president would allow to expire would significantly lower marginal tax rates on saving and investment and promote long-run growth. Letting those tax cuts expire would ultimately harm the middle class by lowering their wages.
Evaluation of the administration’s policies must be based on facts, not fabrications and false rumors. The Obama budget wouldn’t raise income taxes on the middle class. But it would increase marginal tax rates, threatening the long-run growth that sustains the well-being of Americans in all income groups.
Sounds like a pretty error-filled article. Reuters was right to pull it and print a retraction. Some reporter also needs to get a talkin' to.
That being said, the AMT is still something that's going to burn a lot of people if nothing is done about it.
So let's not worry about tax rates creating a disincentive for investment, but higher interest rates instead?
Taxes will have to be increased and spending will have to be cut to have a shot at heading the latter off.
So let's not worry about tax rates creating a disincentive for investment, but interest rates instead?
Taxes will have to be increased and spending will have to be cut to have a shot at heading the latter off.
They did this because Obama has stated (and assumed in his budget) that he wants the Bush tax cuts to expire for the richest, and to be made permanent for the middle class. This story was probably taken down because it was disingenuous.
edit: looks like I was late to the explanation party. Oh, and just let all the tax cuts expire. Use that money to not borrow from the Chinese. While you're at it cut some damn spending and make paygo a reality for ALL budget items.
Last edited by Drachen; 02-02-2010 at 06:35 PM.
No.
But it is funny how conservatives criticize Obama for running deficits.
Maybe my comment was off-topic. I just wanted to point it out and not start a whole new thread.
It's a good thing the Dems didn't do the medicare part d since they all were pushing bush to cost way more than it did.
Hey, W's socialism cost less. Whoopde ingdo.
Whatever. This is not about parties. They're both just as guilty.
True but it should be put into context.
Politically, there is no way that allowing the tax cuts for folks under $200 or $250K to expire would have doable. Plus, the chance that it would actually hurt the recovery to increase taxes on folks already tightening their belts is a reasonable position. But personally, I'm not opposed to the increase in taxes for some folks, and I'm not opposed to the increase in taxes for dividends. It is not a huge increase, and I don't believe that folks who are making investment decisions are going to find an increase at the margins sufficiently significant to alter their decisions.
I agree with the position expressed here by those who say that tax increases AND spending cuts are going to be required. It is a real indictment of the American educational system that the basic arithmetic of budgeting is so difficult to accept for so many.
What needs to be put into context? That Bush ran deficits like no Republican before him, and was too chicken to budget all his wars?
I think everyone is well aware of that...
"Keynesians" say this is good for the economy. When the government spends $1 it miraculously becomes $2. Sometimes more, sometimes less, they don't put much stock into exac ude. Or numbers. So, as a consequence of this, everybody will become a millionaire. It's called the multipliers. With any luck, everybody will be a billionaire.
If you don't believe there is a Spending Multiplier you can always go read Robert Barro's work.
I believe in multipliers, I just don't believe in miraculous multipliers - or in the miraculous gift that politicians somehow acquire after being elected which allows them to invest others people money more wisely and successfully than the people that actually own the money. If you have prove of the existence of above 1 multipliers, than I'd like to hear it.
I've read a big part of Barro's work - I don't disagree with him on this, I'm not sure what you meant with this particular suggestion.
Last edited by mogrovejo; 02-02-2010 at 09:02 PM.
What needs to be put into context is that the dems voted for both wars, not just bush. they also voted for the budgets to pay for the wars. Furthermore, they wanted to spend more on bush's bailout and part d.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
