…but then, the so-called “reality-based community” has never been all that into reality.
[Update a few minutes later]
Raise your own taxes, Fareed, but leave ours alone.
The only reason I watch This Week on Sunday morning, particularly since Christiane Amanpour took over, is to see George Will, who doesn’t appear in any other venue, as far as I know. Well, we had a treat this past week, when instead of her panel (which is always too short anyway) she devoted most of the show to Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who tell us that we’re not being taxed enough. Hey, wrote the feds as big a check as you want, guys, pour more of your own money down the rat hole, and get a receipt. But leave the rest of us out of it.
Expand your mind man; don’t confuse them with facts.
Ever notice that Bill Gates got a lot more politically active after the Democrats tried to break up Microsoft?
Mission accomplished, I’d say.
I’m pretty sure that the IRS still accepts donations. I’m also sure that any number of people who owe back-taxes would be happy to let Gates or Buffett pay their tab for them. Call it an early christmas present.
The Republican establishment isn’t all that big on “reality” either, if you take a look at their abstinence-only sex education or Drug War positions. Or the fact that they claim to be pro-family but never say a peep about no-fault divorce and the travesty of how family Courts treat fathers.
but never say a peep about no-fault divorce and the travesty of how family Courts treat fathers
Nobody does, Brock. It’s fully bipartisan buggery.
Raise your own taxes, Fareed, but leave ours alone which is exactly what the Obama tax proposal does. If you make less than $250,000, your taxes don’t change. Fareed presumably makes more, so his taxes go up.
The really funny thing is that Gates and Buffet won’t be measurably impacted by the new tax rates because most of their wealth is made up of unrealized capital gains which aren’t taxed until realized and then at the much lower capital gains rate. In fact, Buffet stands to gain from inheritance tax going up. His company owns serveral insurance companies (Geico and Safeco, among others iir). Life insurance is a very powerful tool for the wealthy to minimize inheritance tax exposure because its fairly easy to avoid paying taxes on life insurance proceeds.
which is exactly what the Obama tax proposal does. If you make less than $250,000, your taxes don’t change. Fareed presumably makes more, so his taxes go up.
Your half right, Fareed’s taxes may indeed go up (I don’t know his income), but it ignores the second half of the statement, the part about leaving our’s alone.
Rob – no, it does not. People who make less then $250,000 per year will not see a tax increase. So unless your in Fareed’s bracket, your money is left alone.
Facts matter, and they are not on your side.
Er…Chris, logic matters, too. You can’t argue that Fareed is not proposing to force “us” to participate in his wish to bend over for the tax rogering by artfully assuming that no one else (or no one else who matters, or who reads TT) is in the same income category.
Carl, I can’t believe that you see illogic in the following proof:
-I troll on TTM.
-I make less than $250,000/year.
-Therefore, everyone else that posts on TTM makes less than $250,000/year.
Q.E.D.
I mean, duh, right? 😉
/sarc
Considering that 98% of the country makes less than $250,000 per year, it would be illogical of me to assume that the readers of TT are all in the 2% over that income.
But even if you do make over $250K, the tax rate only applies to income over $250K. In short, to see any substancial tax increase, you’ll need to be in the top 1% of earners.
People who make less then $250,000 per year will not see a tax increase. So unless your in Fareed’s bracket, your money is left alone.
In addition to being untrue, this completely ignores the point. Fareed, et. all are free contribute more of their income to the government if they feel undertaxed, but leave the rest of us alone. As to the untrue part, I make considerably less than $250k/year and my taxes are going up. As part of the healthcare reform act, tax deductability of medical expenses has been reduced. My son suffers from a disability; his medical expenses are quite high, exceeding 10% of our gross income. Because of HCR, the amount of my son’s medical expenses I am able to deduct from my taxes has been reduced, increasing my taxes. I guess you could argue that this isn’t part of the issue at hand. I’d respond that Obama promised no increase in taxes on people making less than $250k, HCR put the lie to that, I suspect we’ll find that the proposed tax increases will hit “unintended” targets as well.
You tell ’em Chris!! Those rich people need to pay more. How DARE them trying to keep more of the money they earned. I mean, it’s not like it’s theirs or anything. We need more people like you to tell the rest of us how much money the government allows us to have, otherwise, we would have to cut spending. Heaven forbid (sorry Rand)!!!. Next thing, you’ll tell me is if I like my health plan, I can keep it.
Rob Smith – from reading this, your deductible won’t go up until 2013. Perhaps you need to consult a tax professional?
Bill Maron – Fareed’s the one that said “raise my taxes.” Him and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
Rob Smith – on second thought, I shouldn’t be telling you what is or is not true about your tax situation. That was out of line of me.
My only defense is that I frequently see people who don’t understand how the tax code works arguing about taxes. But since I don’t know your situation, that “defense” doesn’t apply here.
Try 1: “People who make less then $250,000 per year will not see a tax increase.”
Try 2: “your deductible won’t go up until 2013.”
Hey, nice job moving the goal posts, Chris.
In short, to see any substancial tax increase, you’ll need to be in the top 1% of earners.
Never mind that those 1% might be a little bit better at knowing how to spend it than the fed. (hell, they’ll just waste it on another jet airplane). No, the bottom line is it’s just wrong for them to keep it. Can’t you all feel that? It FEELS WRONG! They have enough already!
In short, to see any substancial tax increase, you’ll need to be in the top 1% of earners.
I see. So when you say Fareed proposes “exactly” (your word) to leave our taxes alone, that’s equivalent to only an “insubstantial” tax increase if you’re over the magic 200 k$ margin, and perhaps a “substantial” tax increase if you’re in the unlucky 1%, and it all depends on some artful interpretation by you of what “us” it is everyone’s talking about (because it clearly can’t be anything as simple and obvious as “everyone but Fareed”).
This is one of those wonderful Democratic Party Newspeak phrases, isn’t it? Where “no tax increase” means “only a small tax increase for many of you, only a big increase for a small number of you” and the meaning of “is” depends on the phase of the Moon and your sense of truthiness.
You know, this is why people want to see Democrats whacked. This kind of core dishonesty about the plain meaning of words enrages people, and very reasonably so.
which is exactly what the Obama tax proposal does. If you make less than $250,000, your taxes don’t change. Fareed presumably makes more, so his taxes go up.
And what’s going to happen in future fiscal years? You might not have noticed this, but the US has been running huge deficits for the last couple of years. There’s two possible mechanisms for reducing that deficit: 1) decrease spending, and 2) increase tax revenue.
The problem is that raising tax rates on the richest 2% hasn’t fixed the deficit problem. Given that the rich crowd also is very effective at protecting its wealth from government taxation, we’re stuck with too much spending for too little tax revenue no matter how tough we try to get on the rich.
In other words, while Obama hasn’t done it yet, someone will need to raise taxes on everyone else, if we’re to maintain current levels of spending.
Here is the bottom line – 98% of Americans will see NO TAX RATE INCREASE under the Obama plan. That’s a fact. There has not been a tax rate increase yet on anybody. That’s a fact.
Arguing about what might happen or who’s better equipped to spend what is speculation and opinion, not fact.
“Bill Maron – Fareed’s the one that said “raise my taxes.” Him and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.”
And you’re the touting the President’s plan that… raises taxes on the”rich”.
People who are busy making $250k a year are generally too busy to do everything themselves. Maybe they have the kids in day care, or maybe they hire the kid down the street to mow the lawn, or maybe they own a small business and employ a few people. If they are punished for making more than $250k a year, then why work so hard? Why not earn just under that magic cutoff?
Why take on that extra catering job or that extra home renovation, if it will bump you over? So your guys might not make as many hours as last year, or you might not be able to keep the kids in daycare, but in the long run you’re better off because you don’t get that “over-$250k-a-year” penalty. Why work harder and end up losing money on the deal?
Higher taxes on “the rich” are a jobs killer. Cut the damn spending already.
I’m so very glad we got the “bottom line” on Gerrib’s red herring, at least according to Gerrib. If only you rubes would STFU as listen to him, you’d all be that much smarter.
Here is the bottom line – 98% of Americans will see NO TAX RATE INCREASE under the Obama plan. That’s a fact. There has not been a tax rate increase yet on anybody. That’s a fact.
This year. I’m referring to all the years that come after FY 2011. I’m tired of you wasting our time with “facts” that don’t apply past this fiscal year. Sure, 98% of people aren’t seeing an increase in tax rate this year. Perhaps they won’t next year as well. But every year that we see high spending and low tax revenue collection, we collect considerable debt. Someone pays for that. I think it’s greatly delusional to think that 2% of US citizens (the 2% who happen also to be most skilled at protecting their wealth from taxation) will pay for this all.
Chris you live in a static fantasy, but life happens in a dynamic reality.
Tax rates affect more than the people they target. So even if your bogus ‘facts’ were in fact, fact, it would not be the whole correct story.
Tax rates affect peoples behavior, thus dynamic rather than static. Do you acknowledge this? If not well… your comments are tragic and wrong.
What effects? How do those over $250k make their money? You can’t assume it’s all wages or investment income. Many will be small business owners. You know, the people that create more jobs than any other segment of society.
What do they do when their taxes go up? Charge more perhaps? Hire less Perhaps? Find ways to avoid taxes that others of lessor means can not?
If prices go up for those making less than $250k as a result of tax and other policy… isn’t it a bit disingenuous to claim no negative impact on those of lessor means? Chris, your comments make you look like a fool.
Twice Rand has reference articles that show taxes to be about a constant 19% regardless of rate. Did you miss these articles?
Rob Smith – from reading this, your deductible won’t go up until 2013.
This might be relevent if the deductable wasn’t going up until 2113, but 2013 isn’t that fair in the future.
Perhaps you need to consult a tax professional?
And this is the crux of the problem. People like Buffet and Gates can afford small armies of “tax professionals” to shield their wealth from Uncle Sam. Most of the people they advocate raising taxes on don’t have that luxury.
Ken Anthony – yes, taxes cause dynamic behavior. The dynamic behavior of reverting to Clinton-era taxes is not large – we saw what happened then. Price pressure (AKA inflation) was low, job growth was high.
Regarding the “small businesses will be hurt” actually, no. Average small business income is around $30,000. The 1.3 million people who make over $250K are largely entertainers and professionals (doctors and lawyers) – not folks who generate huge job growth.
Karl Hallowell – I can’t speculate about what will happen with taxes down the road. All I can state is the fact that they have not gone up, and the current proposal is very limited in scope.
Rob Smith – the cost of a tax preparer can be deducted from your return. Again, I probably shouldn’t be saying this, but if your taxes are that complicated I suspect you need to see an accountant.
Gerrib, get this through your head: there’s no going back to the Clinton era, not for another 70+ years. The tech and housing bubbles will not be re-inflated. Brush-up on your Strauss & Howe, please.
Titus – I’m really not interested in debating the theories of Strauss and Howe. I am interested in addressing the reality of the deficit and the economy. To do that we need to:
1) Increase government revenue – tax rate hike
2) Stop exporting billions of dollars overseas to buy energy
Item #2 can do for the next decade what tech did for the 1980s and 1990s. I’ll risk a bit of a bubble at the end of a 20+ year run.
Increase government revenue – tax rate hike
Ahhh come on Chris. That 19% figure is laughing at you. Just come clean; it’s about JUSTICE. Those damn evil people who make all that money… something MUST be done. I assure you you’ll feel better if you just admit it.
Curt – please stop telling me what you think I feel, especially since you’re wrong. There’s nothing evil about making money – I make a lot myself. It’s not particularly evil wanting to keep what you make. But the benefits of modern society aren’t free. All I ask is that those who enjoy more of the benefits pay more for them.
Moving on – that GDP-to-taxes ratio is not terribly useful. GDP fluctuates. One of the reasons our current debt-to-GDP ratio is so high is that GDP is down significantly.
It’s also irrelevant to the deficit. Our deficit is measured in absolute dollars, not percentage of GDP. If somebody invented a perpetual motion machine tomorrow, and GDP went up 500%, our debt wouldn’t change.
Lastly, I’m not a deficit hawk. We can keep running deficits until the recession is over. My point is that, if you are concerned about the deficit, raising taxes has to be part of the solution.
All I ask is that those who enjoy more of the benefits pay more for them.
Thank you.
(you could have just said “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, but the above is adequate)
Wasn’t asking for you to debate.
Oh as for this:
Don’t worry — it won’t.
Karl Hallowell – I can’t speculate about what will happen with taxes down the road. All I can state is the fact that they have not gone up, and the current proposal is very limited in scope.
And you are an utter fool for doing so. I can speculate on what will happen with taxes. And given that spending has gone up by a considerable amount, deficits have skyrocketed, the economy is seriously hampered by current government activities, and we have no mechanism in place to make rich people pay for it all, I see future taxes will have to go up for the majority of US citizens, if spending doesn’t decline.
I frankly don’t care that you, rhetorically of course, “can’t” speculate about where the US is going (other than to speculate that we’ll have to increase taxes!). My view is that if you had to rationally speculate on the future direction of the US, you would have to conclude that your insipid talking point about about only 2% of US citizens seeing a rise in taxes is going to be wrong in the future.
All I ask is that those who enjoy more of the benefits pay more for them.
How about not giving them the benefits in the first place? There’s a grotesque conceit here, that people who we can tax more must be people who are getting more benefit from the government. I think that’s nonsense. It’s an after the fact rationalization for the fact that someone has to pay for the copious government spending. It’s far easier to go after the top 2% of income earners rather than fairly tax a far broader component of US voters.
if you are concerned about the deficit, raising taxes has to be part of the solution.
Why, no. No it doesn’t. The Federal government can simply stop spending so much money.
The dynamic behavior of reverting to Clinton-era taxes is not large
Forgotten, have you, that in the Clinton era all the Boomers were in high-earning years, while now they’re about to retire? Oops!
Average small business income is around $30,000
Totally irrelevant. If I have a business making a million a year employing a dozen people, raising taxes could put me out of business. Bye bye, jobs.
In case you didn’t notice, that million a year doesn’t mean I’m a millionaire.
You ignore that reality.
Rob Smith – you hit the nail on the head about the “tax professionals”, think of the waste of resources on trying to figure out taxes every year! It must be in the billions of dollars!
You’re also right about the unrealized capital gains. One of Buffett’s main strategies is finding companies that deliver such consistent earning that he hardly ever has to sell them, and therefore hardly ever pays taxes! And Gates hasn’t exactly sold out of his Microsoft stock either. I’d like to see what their opinion would be on a direct tax on wealth! Why not confiscate all their wealth so no one has over, say, $10 million? That’s what Huey Long wanted way back when.
I forgot to mention that another Buffett strategy is ceasing dividend payouts of companies he has a large or controlling interest in. Dividends are taxable so he just lets the capital accumulate over the years and again never has to pay a dime in taxes! This guy is an elitist and hypocrite of the first order.
L.O.P., you may be making an argument for repeal of the income tax amendment. That’s a power grab we never should have allowed.
Chris Gerrib Says:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:47 am
“Our deficit is measured in absolute dollars, not percentage of GDP. If somebody invented a perpetual motion machine tomorrow, and GDP went up 500%, our debt wouldn’t change.”
Ouch! That is so wrong on so many levels, it makes my head ache. There is nothing… NOTHING… absolute about dollars. They are NOT wealth, they are a medium of exchange. They REPRESENT wealth, and as such, whatever their nominal value, all it represents is the sum total of goods and services for which they can be exchanged. The number value assigned to them is completely arbitrary.
If that sum total INCREASES, then the debt, which is that amount of our future production which we have promised to others in exchange for their goods and services today, GOES DOWN. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. When GDP goes up, our debt GOES DOWN.
How many times do I have to bang this drum before people will hear it? The association of money with wealth seems to be hard coded in people. It is the outlook of provincial bumpkins in economic matters. It just makes me want to scream and tear out what’s left of my hair.
Good points Bart, and Chris goes on…
…if you are concerned about the deficit, raising taxes has to be part of the solution
First, your language is imprecise… by raising taxes do you mean rates or revenue? Using your own point, how does that follow? If you’re concerned about the deficit the solution is to pay it down. It’s about the allocation of spending. As for taxes, you can not ignore the Laffer curve.